Federal gun free school zone

[BC1]

*IF* there was such a ban then ALL of us who live in cities are already breaking the law.
I cant throw a rock in any direction here where I live without it passing through at least 3 school zones before it hit the ground.

Here in Ohio I can drive or walk through on the road or sidewalk.
I can also drop off or pick up.

What I cant do is get out of my car or go into the school while armed.

Got to tell ya, there are so many laws that I'm thoroughly confused.

[Swinokur]

The original GFSZA of 1990 was found unconstitutional Google Lopez. A new law was passed in 1994 and took affect 1995.

The current GSZA will not be affected by a National carry bill as it's provision only protecting licensees of the same state the school is in.home state is not rescinded. Nothing changes as far as the GFSZA is concerned.

[sdprof]

The original GFSZA of 1990 was found unconstitutional Google Lopez. A new law was passed in 1994 and took affect 1995.

The current GSZA will not be affected by a National carry bill as it's provision only protecting licensees of the same state the school is in.home state is not rescinded. Nothing changes as far as the GFSZA is concerned.

Then let's work to fix that as well. I've just sent the proposal below to my state rep, along with asking her to get on board with HR 822.

Additionally, would you propose or support an amendment to that bill that would modify 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) of the Gun Free School Zone act to allow for any licensed person to carry within school zones. Specifically, change the text:

...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;

to read:

...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by a State or political subdivision, 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;

I believe that if the National Reciprocity bill is requiring all states to accept all licenses, the Federal government should also give equal treatment to them.

[Eagle2009]

*IF* there was such a ban then ALL of us who live in cities are already breaking the law.

There is such a ban, it's called the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, and most of you that live in cities are breaking the law, and risk going to federal prison at any time. For those of you wondering, the national reciprocity bill does not effect GFSZA95 in any way whatsoever. It is currently a federal felony for you travel armed on public sidewalks, roads, and highways that pass within 1000 feet of the property line of any K-12 school, unless you have a carry permit physically issued by the State in which the school is in. It will continue to be illegal whether the National Reciprocity Bill passes or not. Any permit, other than one physically issued by the State in which the school is located, is worthless as far as federal law is concerned. Anyone carrying without a permit physically issued by the State in which they are in commits a federal felony every time they drive within 1000 feet of a school. Not even law-enforcement officers are exempt unless they are on-duty.


ATF Letter confirming what I've said

[Eagle2009]

There are extensive resources regarding the law, including FAQ, ATF letters, maps, etc, at this website:

https://sites.google.com/site/ncagfsza95/

[Eagle2009]

Update: April 13 2011: A federal judge has ruled that Gun Free School Zones are not
rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's Heller decision, and
proclaims that the Supreme Court specifically endorsed the federal law
and similar state laws in their Heller decision.

Gun free school zone challenge fails in California - JSOnline


As you know, the federal law makes it a felony for any armed
citizen to travel on public sidewalks, roads, or highways which pass
within 1000 feet of any K-12 school, unless they have a CCW permit
physically issued by the State in which the school is located. The federal law does not
allow for CCW reciprocity agreements between States, and ATF has
stated this in writing.

[S&W645]

Update: April 13 2011: A federal judge has ruled that Gun Free School Zones are not
rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's Heller decision, and
proclaims that the Supreme Court specifically endorsed the federal law
and similar state laws in their Heller decision.

Gun free school zone challenge fails in California - JSOnline


As you know, the federal law makes it a felony for any armed
citizen to travel on public sidewalks, roads, or highways which pass
within 1000 feet of any K-12 school, unless they have a CCW permit
physically issued by the State in which the school is located. The federal law does not
allow for CCW reciprocity agreements between States, and ATF has
stated this in writing.

While I dislike the current wording of the GFSZ Act, the judge did rule correctly. The owner still has the rights to have that gun on private property even if within 1000 ft of the school. Or locked in a container or in the trunk until out of the school zone. Problem for many down here is the school board owns property all over the place. Get your state's permit and hope your state has laws that exempt license holders. CA seems to ignore the exemption granted in the Fed law in their state law.

[nogods]

While Hall contends that the law unreasonably burdens his right to bear arms in self-defense, under Heller the right to bear arms in public is not unqualified. See 554 U.S. at 595 ("[W]e do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."). In Hall's view, the State must bear the burden of demonstrating that he is disqualified from possessing a handgun in a school zone. In rejecting his request for an exemption from the Act, Garcia provided no basis for the denial. At oral argument, Hall suggested that, as a law-abiding, responsible [*16] citizen, Garcia would be unable to provide a legitimate reason. In that respect, however, Hall is not unlike any number of San Francisco residents who may seek to carry openly a handgun in a school zone.

If the Superintendent were required to grant exemptions to all, the practical effect would be to undermine the existence of a gun-free zone around schools. Instead, the law provides an express exemption where a person has obtained a current restraining order and reasonably fears for his or her safety. Separately, the Superintendent possesses the authority to grant an exemption from the Act. In this case, Garcia's decision not to extend such permission merely on request bears a substantial relationship to the important objective of protecting children on and near schools from exposure to firearms. Accordingly, the denial of his request for an exemption under the Act does not violate Hall's Second Amendment right.

[S&W645]

While Hall contends that the law unreasonably burdens his right to bear arms in self-defense, under Heller the right to bear arms in public is not unqualified. See 554 U.S. at 595 ("[W]e do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose."). In Hall's view, the State must bear the burden of demonstrating that he is disqualified from possessing a handgun in a school zone. In rejecting his request for an exemption from the Act, Garcia provided no basis for the denial. At oral argument, Hall suggested that, as a law-abiding, responsible [*16] citizen, Garcia would be unable to provide a legitimate reason. In that respect, however, Hall is not unlike any number of San Francisco residents who may seek to carry openly a handgun in a school zone.

If the Superintendent were required to grant exemptions to all, the practical effect would be to undermine the existence of a gun-free zone around schools. Instead, the law provides an express exemption where a person has obtained a current restraining order and reasonably fears for his or her safety. Separately, the Superintendent possesses the authority to grant an exemption from the Act. In this case, Garcia's decision not to extend such permission merely on request bears a substantial relationship to the important objective of protecting children on and near schools from exposure to firearms. Accordingly, the denial of his request for an exemption under the Act does not violate Hall's Second Amendment right.

One of the things not mentioned is was Hall there before the school or was the school there first? If Hall. then CA took away his rights. If the school and then he moved there after 1995, then he really doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Eagle2009]

While I dislike the current wording of the GFSZ Act, the judge did rule correctly.

I agree that the judge ruled in accordance with Heller. I said a long time ago that Heller would not change Fed GFSZA95, and there were people that wanted to argue otherwise. This court case reinforces the need for a legislative amendment.