|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 26, 2014, 10:50 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
How does this Federal GFSZ affect States with Constitutional Open Carry?
If OC is legal to State residents without a License or permit, are they in compliance or in violation of Federal law if they OC within 1000 feet with no permit/license? |
December 26, 2014, 10:46 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 27, 2014, 01:18 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
so basically in say Vermont, nobody can carry in any manner within a school zone?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
December 27, 2014, 08:43 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Koda94, that is basically correct, unless the person is a LEO and is on-duty.
|
December 27, 2014, 12:27 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
The Federal GFZ law also list an exception for possession on private property.
Does this pertain to all private property within the 100 foot zone or only "Your" private property as in your home? Would one be in violation of the 1000 foot law if caught carrying at a Convenience Store inside the 1000 foot zone as it is private property, but not their property? |
December 27, 2014, 01:28 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 6,441
|
Where I live, if you have a CWL, you can bring your concealed weapon onto school grounds if you are in line to pick up your kid from school. If you have to go IN the school, that is something different
|
December 27, 2014, 09:56 PM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
In an open carry state, since the exception to the GFSZ Act is a permit issued by the state in which the school is located, your state may not care if you drive onto school grounds while picking up your child, but you would be in violation of the federal law every time you drive to or from the school (as well as wheile on the school property itself). |
|
December 28, 2014, 01:14 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
I thought the state issued permit exempted you from the GFSZ law regardless of if you were inside the building or even if you had children enrolled?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
December 28, 2014, 01:28 AM | #34 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
http://gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf Quote:
|
||
December 28, 2014, 02:50 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
I did the Google on 18 USC § 921 Definitions,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 And I can't find, (i) on private property not part of school grounds; If I was walking down the street inside the 1000 foot zone with a firearm and a "recognized" out of State permit, I would be in violation of the GFSZ Act. If I hopped off the street onto private property (not mine) would I no longer be violating the GFSZ Act? |
December 28, 2014, 03:11 AM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...990#Exceptions here is another random question: how does the GFSZ act affect firearms that have NOT moved in, or otherwise affected, interstate commerce.... would a legally home made firearm qualify as such?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
||
December 28, 2014, 03:41 AM | #37 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,549
|
So here is one to get your mind around......My local CMP Junior program is at what was the Junior High school. Has been there since the sixties.
|
December 28, 2014, 03:59 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,952
|
Quote:
What do you see and where did you find it? All I see is "private property"? |
|
December 28, 2014, 04:07 AM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
|
December 28, 2014, 09:49 AM | #40 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
However, that's only an exemption from the federal GFSZ Act. The federal law doesn't and can't offer an exemption from state laws prohibiting firearms in schools (and usually on school grounds), and I don't think there's any state that doesn't have some sort of list of places you can't carry that includes schools. Quote:
Montana passed a law a year or two ago that says firearms manufactured within the state and that remain in the state are exempt from federal regulations. I'm pretty certain that nobody has tested it yet, but I believe the federal D.O.J. has said they disagree, and they'll treat Montana-made firearms the same as all others. The catch is the concept of "in or affecting" interstate commerce. The feds have already used this to assert jurisdiction over sale and consumption of locally grown marijuana. Their contention (which I believe was upheld in court) was that by growing marijuana locally, the defendant "affected" interstate commerce by NOT making it necessary to import marijuana from another state. With logic like that, it's easy to predict that it would not be enough to just say a gun was manufactured in Montana. To get any traction at all, the iron ore would have to be mined and smelted in Montana, the ores for all the alloying components would have to be mined and smelted in Montana, and ALL parts of the firearm would have to be made and assembled entirely within Montana. If they really got a burr under their saddle, they (the feds) might even claim that the machinery used to create the parts would have to have originated entirely within Montana. Basically, they have stretched the original intent of the interstate commerce clause beyond recognition, in order to assume federal jurisdiction over things that are none of the feds business. Sadly, the Supreme Court has allowed this erosion to take place. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; December 28, 2014 at 09:59 AM. |
||
December 28, 2014, 02:37 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,294
|
Quote:
I knew about this already but didn’t make the connection with the GFSZ until this thread got resurrected. We've simply never voted in any state legislation adding licensed carry prohibitions at schools and Oregon’s pre-emption clause prohibits individual localities from doing so. (in fact in Oregon there really are less than a handful of places off limits with a state issued license) And I agree I don’t want to be any test case, but that was a random question ...and moot to me because I don’t own any equipment to fabricate a firearm.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
|
|
|