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

[ronwill]

Originally Posted by Eagle2009

Writing Congress wont hurt, I think we should be writing them about all the issues. This is a democratic society. The fact is, this is the worst law currently on the books. The current lack of strict enforcement is no reason to ignore it. The Justice Department has the ability to bring this into full enforcement whenever they choose to.

For example, the law that allows BATF to restrict the import of guns that don't have any "generally recognized sporting purpose" was actually signed into law in the Gun Control Act of 1968. That clause was ignored for over twenty years... until President George Herbert Walker Bush ordered that it be brought into full enforcement. This is why imports are so severely restricted today, because of a little known, little cared about law, that everyone ignored for over twenty years.

Severely restricted imports? Once the AWB was lifted I obtained a Russian made AK-47 and an Israeli made 9mm. Here's a list of dealers and importers still in business:

THE GUN GUY - Gun Manufacturers, Distributors and Importers - Page 4

[Eagle2009]

ATF, can still, at their discretion deny import of any semiautomatic rifle, or any shotgun they don't feel is suited to "sporting purposes." The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows them to do this.

This is why all the "assault rifles" on the shelves today, are either made completely in America, imported as parts and then assembled such that they only have 10 or less foreign parts, or were imported before 1989.

Here is the law regarding the 10 or fewer parts: MilSurpStuff.com 922(r) Compliance Info


This is the news article regarding the import ban http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/08/us...permanent.html (This was in 1989 and had absolutely no relation to the AWB of 1994, this 1989 ban is still in effect today)


This is why you don't see brand new "assault rifles" sitting on store shelves hot off the factory lines in Germany, Switzerland, Austria etc.

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by Eagle2009

ATF, can still, at their discretion deny import to any semiautomatic rifle, or any shotgun they don't feel is suited to "sporting purposes." The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows them to do this.

This is why all the "assault rifles" on the shelves today, are either made completely in America, imported as parts and then assembled such that they only have 10 or less foreign parts, or were imported before 1989.

Here is the law regarding the 10 or fewer parts: MilSurpStuff.com 922(r) Compliance Info


This is the news article regarding the import ban
U.S. Company Eluding Assault Rifle Import Ban - The New York Times


This is why you don't see brand new "assault rifles" sitting on store shelves that were made in Germany, Switzerland, etc.

Sorry, will have to agree to disagree with you on this at the moment, as in the last 3 months I have personally bought multiple brand new, manufactured this year, 100% made in Russia assault weapons, Sniper rifles etc, in the box from the factory with the Russian paper work from the oldest firearms dealer in Las Vegas...

With 22,000 plus and counting firearms laws (AKA: Second Amendment Infringements), I can not personally tell you off the top of my head which one(s) allows me to legally purchase what I have in direct contradiction to what you have posted... But I can tell you the the BATFE and the Clark County, Nevada Sheriff's office know I have them...

[ronwill]

As I stated earlier my AK-47 was manufactured entirely in Russia and then imported. This was after lifting of the AWB and during the law you refer to. Of those prosecuted for carrying through a school zone, all that I could find were arrested for another offense and had that tacked on. I honestly believe, at least for now, this law has had no impact on law abiding CCW or firearms owners. I know from my travels that I haven't been prosecuted under it. The law concerning ten or more parts is for assembling a weapon in the U.S.

[Eagle2009]

I'll trust you on the AK-47. However, only semi-automatic rifles which are "generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" are imported. This is highly discretionary, so I guess somebody decided to let them in.


But let's try to stay on topic... Yes, all of the people I've found convicted of GFSZA were charged with it as a secondary charge to something more serious. I think law enforcement officers and prosecutors generally use good common sense and discretion while performing their duties. They put their lives on the line every day to make our society a better place. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for them, they generally don't put good people in prison.

But occasionally there is a bad apple. Someone who is not out serving justice, but instead, is using the trust society has bestowed upon them for their own selfish desires. This is why it is extremely important for our Congress to amend bad laws, such as GFSZA, instead of relying on law enforcement's discretion. I don't think GFSZA was ever intended to put permit holders in prison, but one bad apple can destroy many lives before the system weeds him/her out.

[TatankaGap]

the original quote referred to "a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." - this means that you have to have reasonable cause to believe there is a school zone - you can't be arrested for accidentally driving through one of those dots and get 5 years - remember, the Due Process clause still applies.....

[Eagle2009]

You are correct, the law requires a "knowing" element. So the question becomes, does the jury believe you "reasonably" knew you were within 1000 feet of a school? You may be able to make an argument at 999 feet with a forest between you... but you will have extreme difficulty claiming you didn't know, when you are in sight of a school..

So who has written their Representatives? I took several hours of my personal time to write the letter for you, so please send it out. =)


If you don't know how to contact your elected officials, follow this link: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by Eagle2009

You are correct, the law requires a "knowing" element. So the question becomes, does the jury believe you "reasonably" knew you were within 1000 feet of a school? You may be able to make an argument at 999 feet with a forest between you... but you will have extreme difficulty claiming you didn't know, when you are in sight of a school..

So who has written their Representatives? I took my personal time to write the letter for you, so please send it out. =)

Existing Precedence has shown Ignorance of the law is not a viable argument, unless the particular law is very obscure, even then it is seldom acceptable...

The Unconstitutional BATFE and IRS routinely beat Ignorance of the Law (tax code, etc) Arguments in court by citizens they have chosen to victimize...

Although, Even the Supreme Court Usurped their power of Judicial Review due to ignorance of Congress, The States and People of the United States, that have allowed it to go on...

Chief Justice John Marshall crafted the most famous and precedent-setting assumption of judicial power in 'Marbury v. Madison'. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Marshall concluded that the Congress had granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction that the Constitution expressly denied it. He convincingly argued that the statute at issue had the effect of altering the Constitution (without following the amending process prescribed in the Constitution) and therefore, the Supreme Court was obliged to declare it unconstitutional. Thus, in one decision, the Supreme Court refused to accept a power given to it by the Legislative Branch, while at the same time it assumed the power of judicial review, something that no legislative body would have ever contemplated granting.

Therefore, the Supreme Court NEVER had the last word, that POWER WAS EXPRESSLY GIVEN TO THE PEOPLE...

The fact that we as citizens in all but 2 states are required to have a CCW is a Second Amendment Infringement in itself...

[Eagle2009]

And in those two States (Alaska and Vermont) you are breaking this federal law every time you drive down the road and pass within 1000 feet of a school. ;)

[Bohemian]

Originally Posted by Eagle2009

And in those two States (Alaska and Vermont) you are breaking this federal law every time you drive down the road and pass within 1000 feet of a school. ;)

And the Gun Free School Zones and other purposes act (AKA: The Kill for free and leave our kids & their teachers defenseless and other Second Amendment Infringements act)

Is also unconstitutional...

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=62