Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

[Eagle2009]

Your Georgia permit exempts you from this law while in Georgia. So you can carry on school property in Georgia, if Georgia law allows you to. However, if you step foot outside of Georgia, and go to Florida or any of the other countless States that recognize Georgia's permit by legal agreement, you are risking 5 years in federal prison and the permanent loss of your right to own a firearm for the rest of your life, as soon as your drive within 1000 feet of any K-12 school with an unlocked firearm.


And all those people that have non-resident Utah licenses? They are exempt from GFSZA... IN UTAH. They risk federal prosecution every time they go to the grocery store in their home state.

I realize how hard this is to accept, and it is absurd. But I am right about this, so PLEASE send a letter to your United States Senators and Congressional representative.

[FN1910]

Which of those linked cases involved a defendant that held a valid CWP? I only glanced at two of them and neither one mentioned a permit that I saw.

[Eagle2009]

United States v Tait (2000) is the case where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted by a US Attorney (federal prosecutor), under this federal law, for carrying a handgun in Alabama.

[Eagle2009]

Also, as I mentioned earlier, this law effectively eliminates all unlicensed carry. Many States allow an individual to lawfully carry a loaded handgun openly in a holster, without any kind of permit or background check. Unless the individual also has a CCW permit issued by the State they are in, they risk federal prison every time they pass within 1000 feet of a school. Many states also allow people to keep a loaded handgun in their car without a permit. Again, when they drive within 1000 feet of a school, they risk five years in federal prison. Throwing your gun in the back of your pickup truck so you can head to the range? It better be unloaded and in a locked case.

[FN1910]

Originally Posted by Eagle2009

United States v Tait (2000) is the case where an Alabama concealed carry permit holder was prosecuted by a US Attorney (federal prosecutor), under this federal law, for carrying a handgun in Alabama.

Thanks for that link. The first two you posted to this case did not work for me. This was an enlighting case where I did not know that unpon release of a felon in Michigan that their full rights were restored. I don't see this case as a person being arrested for carrying a gun on school property with a permit as much as a test of the vaildity of a permit. This just showedc that anyone in Alabama can get a permit as long as you are friends with the sheriff.

Have any of the laws involved in this case changed since then?

[Eagle2009]

I'm not familiar with Michigan law, so I don't know if anything has changed. United States v Tait is proof that the federal government has prosecuted a permit holder, and can do it again if they choose to. This is why we should petition our Congressmen to amend the law so that seemingly lawful activities, like driving down the road in a reciprocal State, are recognized.

[FN1910]

From the text of the law you quoted:

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

From the letter from the BATFE that you linked.

The law clearly provides that in order to qualify as an exception to the general prohibitions of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, the license must be issued by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of that State.

Has this been tested in court anywhere? The author of this letter certainly tries to take some liberties with his interpretation on the difference between being licensed and having a license issued. I would be interested in a case where a court ruled on it. Certainly the Tait case did not answer this question and considering how that case was ruled I would say that it should be favorable to the state having licensed an individual if a reciprocity agreement had been signed by both states.

[Eagle2009]

I too have noticed that... and even if the court agrees that you are "licensed" by the reciprocity agreement, you will likely be hung up on:

Originally Posted by Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q)ii (excerpt quoted)

and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an
individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify
that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license

And if you want to be really picky... some CCW permits aren't issued by "law enforcement" authorities... they're issued by the Department of Agriculture, or the County Clerk's office etc. So technically, these may not qualify for GFSZA exemption, even in the State that issued them.

[Bohemian]

Its about time we set our representatives in Washington straight on what exactly "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means...

for starters, its ludicrous that a concealed carry permit is required for concealed carry...

Thomas Jefferson, carried concealed most of the time, and often stated it was your civic duty to be armed at all times...

Never did see where he or any of the founding fathers felt that the Second Amendment required licensing or permission of any kind from any body...

"Gun Free Zones"? give me a fricking break!

"Kill for Free Zones" more like...

biggest mass shootings in u.s. history have occurred in fricking "GUN FREE ZONES"

Time for a New Declaration of Independence! a New American Tea Party!

This time we show up Armed!

[FN1910]

Originally Posted by Eagle2009

I too have noticed that... and even if the court agrees that you are "licensed" by the reciprocity agreement, you will likely be hung up on:

Originally Posted by Title 18 U.S.C Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 922(q)ii (excerpt quoted)
and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an
individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify
that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license

And if you want to be really picky... some CCW permits aren't issued by "law enforcement" authorities... they're issued by the Department of Agriculture, or the County Clerk's office etc. So technically, these may not qualify for GFSZA exemption, even in the State that issued them.

I don't think so because in the Tait case this exact thing was the basis for the guilty verdict being overturned. Yes Tait was prosecuted but I think that this establishes case law where they will not try it again.

The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants. The § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception only applies if "... the law of the State ... requires that ... [the sheriff] verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii). By its basic terms, the statute merely requires that the Alabama sheriff ensured that Tait was qualified under Alabama law to receive the license. While the Alabama law is extremely lenient, it is nonetheless the only pertinent law. Alabama has chosen its laws, and these are the laws which determine whether the federal statute's exception applies. See Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308, 118 S.Ct. at 2011- 12, 141 L.Ed.2d303.6 Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established "qualified under law" as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected.