Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important) - Page 7
Page 7 of 31 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 302

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

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    ...
    I know you all don't want to admit this... but nogods and I are right about this. ...
    Just what part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you & your buddy nogods not understand?

    Constitutional Republic 101: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...

    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government...
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  2.   
  3. Bohemian, I agree with you on the 2nd Amendment... but you know as well as I do that we can not rely on it to guarantee us the protections the founders intended it to. Nogods and I are not trying to downplay the importance of the 2nd Amendment. We are only trying to bring a bad law to the attention of law abiding gun owners with the hope it may be reformed through the democratic process outlined in the Constitution.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    Bohemian, I agree with you on the 2nd Amendment... but you know as well as I do that it does not give us the protections the founders intended it to. Nogods and I are not trying to downplay the importance of the 2nd Amendment. We are only trying to bring a bad law to the attention of law abiding gun owners with the hope it may be reformed through the democratic process outlined in the Constitution.
    But it DOES, it is only through our own neglect of the constitution that it has been perverted into being subverted...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #64
    If we can get the legislation changed, then no one has to go through the hassle and expense of an arrest, trial, and subsequent appeal on the 2nd amendment argument.

    And what if the 2nd amendment argument fails? What if the courts hold that the law is a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms? (The Heller case recognizes the the right can be restricted as to both type and place.)

    Then the guinea pig who got arrested is going to end up with a record.

    It would be much better to get the law changed.

  6. #65
    I still have yet to see a valid citation that depicts that CCW Reciprocity is Currently banned under Federal Law as the title of this thread indicates...

    Regarding The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 that replaced the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 that the Supreme Court found Unconstitutional... (U.S. v. Lopez.)

    In the Lopez decision, the Supreme Court held that the original act exceeded Congress' commerce clause power because it did not adequately tie guns found in school zones to interstate commerce...

    The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 requires that the prosecutor prove that the gun brought to school "moved in or affected interstate commerce" ...

    Gun rights advocates condemned the 1990 attempt to restrict their rights. The act was challenged as unconstitutional and was struck down by the Supreme Court in April 1995 in United States v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549). The Supreme Court upheld state and local authority in the regulation of schools and ruled that Congress exceeded its power in passing the original act. In response to the Court's ruling, Congress approved a slightly revised version of the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1996 (PL 104-208). The focus of the act was changed from possessing a firearm in a school zone to possessing a firearm "that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce" in a school zone.

    Bloomfield Press, Phoenix • 1-800-707-4020 • GUNLAWS.COM • 8/31/05
    Gun Free School Zones Act—as reenacted
    Originally enacted in 1990
    (P.L. 101-647, Sec. 1702(b)(1))
    Overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, April 26, 1995
    Re: Federalism; Congress exceeded its authority under Commerce Clause.
    (U.S. v. Lopez, 514 US 549)
    Reenacted by Congress, Sep. 30, 1996
    (P.L. 104-208)
    Deletions • A d ditions
    18 USC 922 Unlawful acts
    (q)(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
    (A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is
    a pervasive, nationwide problem;
    (B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the
    interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal
    gangs;
    (C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate
    commerce and have been found in increasing numbers
    in and around schools, as documented in numerous
    hearings in both theJudiciary Committee o n the
    Judiciary of the House of Representatives and
    Judiciary t h e Committee o n the Judiciary o f the
    Senate;
    (D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its
    component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials
    from which they are made have considerably moved in
    interstate commerce;
    (E) while criminals freely move from State to State,
    ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to
    travel to or through certain parts of the country due to
    concern about violent crime and gun violence, and
    parents may decline to send their children to school
    for the same reason;
    (F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has
    resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our
    country;
    (G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse
    impact on interstate commerce and the foreign
    commerce of the United States;
    (H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost
    impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves;
    even t h emselves--eve n States, localities, and school
    systems that have made strong efforts to prevent,
    detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts
    unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of
    other States or localities to take strong measures; and
    (I) t h e C ongress has t h e p ower, under the interstate
    commerce clause and other provisions of the
    Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the
    integrity and safety of the Nation’s N a tion' s schools by
    enactment of this subsection.
    (2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
    possess a firearm t h at has moved in or that otherwise
    affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that
    the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to
    believe, is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) shall d o es not apply to the
    possession of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (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 obtain s 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;
    (iii) which t h a t is—
    (I) not loaded; and
    (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack
    which t h a t is on a motor vehicle;
    (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a
    school in the school zone;
    (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered
    into between a school in the school zone and the
    individual or an employer of the individual;
    (vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her
    official capacity; or
    (vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual
    while traversing school premises for the purpose of
    gaining access to public or private lands open to
    hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized
    by school authorities.
    (3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be
    unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless
    disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or
    attempt to discharge a firearm t h at has moved in or
    that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce
    at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
    (B) Subparagraph (A) shall d o es not apply to the discharge
    of a firearm—
    (i) on private property not part of school grounds;
    (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school
    zone, by an individual who is participating in the
    program;
    (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract
    entered into between a school in a school zone and the
    individual or an employer of the individual; or
    (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her
    official capacity.
    (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
    preempting or preventing a State or local government
    from enacting a statute establishing gun-free g un free
    school zones as provided in this subsection.
    18 USC 921 Definitions
    (a) As used in this chapter—
    (25) The term “school zone” means—
    (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or
    private school; or
    (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of
    a public, parochial or private school.
    (26) The term “school” means a school which provides
    elementary or secondary education, as determined
    under State law.

    http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

    Update on U.S. v. Tait ...
    U.S. v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000)

    http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait

    CONCLUSION


    Wiley Block Tait, a former felon, possessed a firearm in a gun-free school zone. Under some circumstances, these facts would have subjected Tait to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 922. However, Tait violated neither 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) nor 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A) in this instance, because both sections have exceptions which legalized Tait's possession. Therefore, the district court's order is


    AFFIRMED.

    Thus... MOST CCWs DO qualify for an exemption under the Gun Free School Zone Act...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Eagle2009 View Post
    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.

    I just looked over US v Tait. Tait had three prior felony convictions.
    Retired US Army Medic
    Proud Husband, Dad and Christian
    www.nationofshooters.com

  8. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by kn1080 View Post
    I just looked over US v Tait. Tait had three prior felony convictions.
    Tait was absolved...

    he was not convicted under the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 ...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  9. #68

    Gun-free zones act: Myth vs. Reality

    GUN-FREE ZONES ACT: MYTH VS. REALITY

    by Gun Owners of America
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
    Springfield, VA 22151
    (703)321-8585


    Some advocates, both in Congress and in the Second Amendment community, have attempted to dismiss the tragic sweeping importance of new federal legislation to create expansive "gun free zones" around every American school. Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed that "its effect on gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new law will "have little effect."
    Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this gun ban merely because they felt it would have a minimal effect. And EVEN IF the impact of this new law was minimal, gun owners should be outraged by ANY law restricting their rights. The Second Amendment states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those words do not leave any room for making compromises.
    While some Second Amendment advocates have minimized the significance of the "gun free zones," they further discount its importance by predicting that the act will be declared unconstitutional by the courts. And yet, ironically, REPUBLICANS on the House Judiciary Committee have issued a statement just as confidently predicting that it will be upheld by the courts.
    Here are some of the questions that been raised, together with the answers to those questions:

    Is this a sweeping piece of legislation?


    The "gun free school zone" legislation would create a virtual 1/2 mile wide "gun free" circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any school) -- a zone which could possibly include home schools. Anyone carrying a gun within this "gun free zone" would be subject to five years in prison, unless he or she has fulfilled one of the government-ordained exceptions to the law -- these exemptions treating our liberties more as privileges, rather than rights. (More on this below.)

    Isn't this the same as the law that was passed in 1990?


    The new law is virtually word-for-word the same as the previous law. When the first disastrous "gun free zones" provision was passed in 1990, it was almost immediately challenged. The effective date was January 27, 1991. By the first months of 1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which ultimately overturned the law in the Supreme Court, had transpired. Aggressive enforcement was held in abeyance while the constitutionality of this language wound its way through the courts.
    In this sense, this law was little different from other gun bans in which enforcement was gradually tightened until the full repressive impact of the legislation had been eased into place.

    Will this law pass constitutional muster?


    Those who rely on the courts to save us from this vast expansion of federal gun laws by declaring the law unconstitutional are playing a very dangerous game. Federal courts have not generally been friends of the Second Amendment.
    Furthermore, many analysts, including the REPUBLICAN leadership on the House Judiciary Committee, are predicting that the superficial changes made in the new act cure the constitutional defects that allowed the 1990 safe schools bill to be overturned by the courts in the Lopez decision.
    Specifically, the new law requires that the gun "affects interstate and foreign commerce." This "affects commerce" language is so broad that, in one case, a farmer was held to have "affected commerce" by growing and wholly consuming his own crops, on the basis that commerce would be altered if every farmer did the same. Obviously, given this interpretation, there would be no human activity that did not "affect commerce," and the change would have absolutely no impact on the implementation of the unconstitutional 1990 law.
    Does this superficial change alter the constitutionality of the unconstitutional 1990 version? Some members of the Second Amendment community believe it does not. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee argue just as adamantly that it does.
    The real answer is that no one knows. It is possible that a court will overturn this statute. BUT, if it does not, we will be stuck with one of the most repressive gun bans on the record books.

    Could this law ban gun ownership by home schoolers?


    The law bans guns within 1,000 feet from the "grounds" of a "public, parochial or private school..." "School" means "a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as defined under State law."
    Contrary to the assertions of the House Judiciary Committee, most -- if not all -- states do recognize that home schools provide "elementary or secondary education" for the purpose of exempting those students from the mandatory attendance requirements of state law.
    The act does NOT specifically look to state law with respect to the question of whether a "home school" is a "private school." But there is a substantial danger that courts will make that finding. Webster's Dictionary defines "private" to mean: "2. not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public [a private school]." Obviously, a home school is not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public. Every educated advocate interested in preserving home schools who has reviewed this problem has reached the same conclusion: there is too much of a danger that this act will be interpreted to prohibit the possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids.
    In fact, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have privately conceded the dangers for home schools, quietly assuring other House Republicans that they would be willing to entertain a "clarification" protecting home schools. Unfortunately, these "assurances" are too-little, too-late.

    Aren't there adequate exemptions to protect law-abiding gun owners?


    Let's look at these "so-called" exemptions:
    THE BOGUS "HUNTER EXEMPTION:" The so-called "hunter exemption" applies only when the school authorities specifically give permission for a hunter to cross their property -- and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming that a hunter on the way to a hunting trip would have to cross fifty school zones, that hunter would have to check with all fifty schools -- or risk being a felon if he did not qualify under another exemption.
    THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What this so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the authorities as a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon in his or her car.
    While many gun owners have made the choice to register themselves in order to carry concealed, many have decided to keep their names off of any government list. (In fact, the recent abuses in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania -- where newspapers are printing the names of CCW holders -- show how easily this registration information can be abused.) Before this "gun free zones" law, motorists in many states could legally transport a loaded firearm for self-defense, without getting a CCW permit.
    For example, Vermont allows any citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. (Vermont law only prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm with the purpose of committing a crime.) Thus, citizens in Vermont can carry legally without jumping through any government-ordained "hoops" -- there is no registration, license fees or taxes. But now under the federal gun free zones provision, law-abiding motorists from Vermont and other states will have to beware. Those who could previously transport a loaded firearm will be stripped of their right to carry a self-defense firearm within 1,000 feet of a school (unless they qualify under another exemption).
    THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely limited exemption would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm in a LOCKED BOX or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW permit as explained above. Even an UNLOADED gun kept in a glove compartment for self-protection would subject the bearer to a five-year prison sentence. Furthermore, this is true even if the person transporting the gun is an OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER.
    Note: Citizens in states like Virginia and Colorado should beware. While these states allow motorists to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment, an obvious conflict arises now when the motorist comes within 1,000 feet (about 3 blocks) of a school. Many jurisdictions now set up road blocks to give sobriety checks and check for seat belts being worn. Police who conduct these road blocks within a school zone will now have one more "prohibited activity" to inspect for.
    THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that a person living within a school zone would not automatically have to relinquish his guns, it would be UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE. Furthermore, the private property exemption only applies to "private property not part of school grounds." Home schools might not be exempted since these clearly fall within the definition of a school under U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921), which defines a "school" as a place which "provides elementary or secondary education as determined under state law."

    Don't most states have comparable laws?


    No. Many states have laws which, on their face, are much narrower than the federal law and do not create mammoth "gun-free zones." For instance, Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school functions." The fact that the expansive federal law is putting pressure on states to enact equally repressive measures at the state level is a recent development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new law. (1)
    Aside from that, while a few states, such as New York and Massachusetts, have specialized in firearms repression, most have been considerably less abusive than BATF in interpreting and enforcing anti-gun statutes, even when those statutes may be overbroad. Even if the only impact of this legislation were its massive expansion of BATF authority, this would be a very bad law.
    Finally, and obviously, anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this piece of legislation merely because they felt it was redundant of state legislation currently on the books.

    Here we go again


    Gun owners should not be confused when they hear leaders in the gun community telling them that anti-gun legislation is not that bad, that such a law will "have little effect." Gun owners have heard this song and dance for almost a century.
    For years, gun leaders have bargained with Congressmen, giving the wink and nod to anti-gun legislation that is "not too bad."
    Consider that in 1934, the executive vice-president of one gun organization testified in Congress that, "You can be just as severe with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns as you desire, and we will go along with you." (2) With this endorsement, Congress subsequently passed the Gun Control Act of 1934.
    In 1963, another executive vice-president of the same gun group told Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) that, "I do not deny you have a problem with mail-order guns, Senator. We want to do everything we can to help you. We will support any reasonable type of legislation to beat that type of business because it is unconscionable." (3) Five years later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted.
    At first, each of these laws may have appeared to "have little effect." But at a minimum, the National Firearms Act of 1934 resulted in Randy Weaver losing his wife almost 60 years later, and gave the "justification" for the raid on the Davidians in Texas. The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted in the elevation of the BATF to its current status -- an agency which required separate legislation in 1986 to curb many of its abuses.
    Indeed, the gun free zones legislation must be repealed. To leave such a slow-ticking time bomb in the federal code only invites the future harassment of gun owners (at best) and future Randy Weaver-type incidents (at worst).

    1. Even many of the states that have "school zone" laws are not as restrictive as the federal law. For instance, while Florida has a law prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, it only applies "during school hours" or during the time of a "sanctioned school activity." (The federal law applies 24 hours a day.)
    And while Texas contains language regarding firearms within 300 feet of a school, this zone of "300 feet" only enhances penalties for a crime committed within that area. In other words, one can legally carry a firearm within 300 feet of a school in Texas -- the law only gives an enhanced penalty for committing a crime within that same distance. The federal law, of course, extends much further than the Texas law. The federal law applies a ban on the possession of a gun (not just an enhanced penalty for the commission of a crime as in Texas), and the federal statute extends the gun free zone up to 1,000 feet from a school (not just to 300 feet as under Texas law).
    2. U.S., Congress, House, National Firearms Act, Hearings, on H.R. 9066, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 1934, p. 30, cited in Lee Kennett and James La Verne Anderson, The Gun in America: The Origins of a National Dilemma, 1975, p. 210.
    3. U.S., Congress, Senate, Dodd Committee, Hearings, 1963, p. 3483, cited in The Gun in America, p. 229.

    2010 by Gun Owners of America
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 - Phone: 703-321-8585 - Fax: 703-321-8408
    The information contained herein may be disseminated for non-commercial purposes as long as credit is given to GOA.



    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  10. The website I originally used to link the court cases is no longer operating. I have fixed nearly all of the case links. I will attempt to fix the remaining ones.

    Also, the forums have been reorganized since I first posted this. It needs to be moved to 2nd Amendment Issues. Please create a redirect so all the links to my topic on other forums still work.


    Oh, and all you Arizonans celebrating your new right to carry without a CCW permit... you need to stay 1000 feet away from every K-12 School to be in compliance with Federal Law.

  11. #70
    I believe a great portion of Eagle 2009' data consists of Old data, data regarding direct and punitive violations of present and past laws, drug involvement and of course alcohol involvement.

    Those who take pride in what firearms they own, how to carry and when to carry eventually will overcome any abuse and "bending" of any of the fatback laws.

    Don't dwell on the past people, work toward the future, our and our children's future.

Page 7 of 31 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast