September 18, 2012, 06:06 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 3,006
|
ccw in school zone
I am working out of town for a few months. The place I am staying is inside a school zone. My room is probably 100 feet from the school building. IIRC there isn't supposed to be any weapons within 1000 of a school.
Does anyone know the finer points of having a firearm in a rented room near a school in Ohio? If I had my computer I'd look in the o.r.c. but all I've got is my phone.
__________________
"9mm has a very long history of being a pointy little bullet moving quickly" --Sevens |
September 18, 2012, 06:27 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
As I recall Gun Free School "Zones" were declared unconstitutional, at least in regards to areas off school property. I believe the Gun Free "Zone" can now only include the school and drive-ways/parking lots, etc.
Wait for an expert.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
September 18, 2012, 06:28 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Federal law:
Quote:
Depending upon which state you are in, state law may be more restrictive. |
|
September 18, 2012, 08:17 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: February 24, 2012
Posts: 71
|
Do you have an Ohio CCW?
|
September 18, 2012, 08:22 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 502
|
In Oklahoma as long as you have a CCW and do not get out of the car you can carry on school property.
|
September 19, 2012, 04:27 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 3,006
|
PeterGreg, yes I do.
__________________
"9mm has a very long history of being a pointy little bullet moving quickly" --Sevens |
September 19, 2012, 06:21 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Location: Liberty Twp, OH
Posts: 283
|
I am not an attorney, I am providing information from two places I know to look. Please form your own conclusions at your risk.
From www.handgunlaw.us for the state of Ohio • School safety zones. A “school safety zone” includes a school, school building, school premises, school activity, and school bus. For purposes of this statute, a school includes everything up to the property boundary. The law generally forbids the carrying of a handgun in a school safety zone unless all of the following apply: You do not enter a school building, premises or activity; and You have a concealed carry license or temporary emergency license; and You are not otherwise in one of the forbidden places listed above and detailed in R.C. 2923.126 (B); or You are a driver or passenger in a motor vehicle immediately in the process of picking up or dropping off a child, and you are not otherwise in violation of the laws governing the transportation of firearms in motor vehicles. NOTE other places listed above consists of: Police stations • Sheriffs’ offices • Highway Patrol posts. Premises controlled by the Ohio Bureau • of Criminal Identification and Investigation. • Correctional institutions or other detention facilities • Airport terminals or commercial airplanes. • Institutions for the care of mentally ill persons. • Courthouses or buildings in which a courtroom is located. • Universities, unless locked in a motor vehicle or in the process of being locked in a motor vehicle. • Places of worship, unless the place of worship permits otherwise. • Child day-care centers. • Government facilities that are not used primarily as a shelter, restroom, parking facility for motor vehicles, or rest facility and is not a courthouse or a building or structure in which a courtroom is located. From the Ohio Attorney General Handbook: School safety zones A “school safety zone” includes a school, school building, school premises, school activity, and school bus. For purposes of this statute, a school includes everything up to the property boundary. If you are licensed to carry a concealed handgun, you may carry a handgun into a school safety zone only if you do not enter a school building, school premises, or school activity. You also must not be in one of the places listed in ORC 2923.126(B). You may be in a motor vehicle and immediately in the process of picking up or dropping off a child. You also must comply with all other laws governing the transportation of firearms in a motor vehicle. |
September 19, 2012, 01:19 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2011
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,497
|
Quote:
Double check with these guys: http://ohioccwforums.org
__________________
"The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank" - Montgomery Scott |
|
September 19, 2012, 03:07 PM | #9 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The original GFSZ Act was ruled invalid and unconstitutional. The Federal Congress almost immediately rephrased and passed another GFSZ Act that has, so far, withstood all challenges.
Under the Federal law, if you have a licensed firearm (licensed by the State in which the School is located), you are clear of any wrongdoing if you are found within the 1000 ft. area. You are not permitted to actually go onto the campus (but your State law may be different - this is allowed under the federal law). So... If you are walking/driving/passing through that 1000 ft. radius and have a State permit, you are OK. Note well, that your permit must be issued by the State in which the School is located. This is only the federal law. Your State law may be (and in most cases, it is) different. |
September 19, 2012, 03:29 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
As Mr. Norris points out, the original law violated the Constitution. I believe it was of the very few cases in which the Supreme Court held that Congress was over exceeding it's power under the Commerce Clause. I'm not sure why the new version passes muster.
None the less, I don't intend on being the test case. IMHO, the States can take care of this without Washington's help. Washington can worry about unimportant things like keeping our diplomats alive. |
September 20, 2012, 07:05 AM | #11 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
IIRC, the original GFSZ Act was held unconstitutional (basically) because Congress didn't include language that tied the Act to interstate commerce. That was the basis for striking the Act, so Congress just turned around and re-enacted the GFSZA, including language tying the act to interstate commerce (& the Commerce Clause).
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 20, 2012, 08:49 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
@Spats,
Yes, I saw the language. However, I think that the rationale that firearms are manufactured and sold in interestate commerce is - at least in this case - over reaching. I approve of stretching the limits of Congressional power in extreme cases when it is necessary. A good example is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The rationale was the lunch counter that was discriminating served food and customers in interstate commerce which is similar to the law in question. However, not all of the states were interested in protecting the civil rights of all of their citizens. The federal government had to do something. In this case, the magnitude of the harm is not anywhere near as great and the states have their own laws on the subject. In fact, if memory serves, the Supreme Court case was from Texas and the guy violated the federal but not the state law because the distances were different. So, I maintain my position that this is an example of Congress over extending itself into the realm of the not needed instead of concetrating on doing a better job of what is needed. Sorry for the political diatribe. It must be the election coming on. |
September 20, 2012, 09:03 AM | #13 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
Quote:
Quote:
bear - (Dictionary.com) - to carry; bring How could they have know in 1791 that some Americans, even with dictionaries would not be able to figure out what bear means? Keep is a similarly difficult word. . .but for another day. Of course, there are the other difficult words of people, right, infringed, arms, etc too. |
||
September 20, 2012, 10:11 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Nathan, no right, including ones guaranteed by the Constitution or Bill of Rights, is absolute. If the Second Amendment were absolute, police wouldn't be allowed to disarm the "alleged" criminals they apprehend and accused murderers sitting at the defense table in court would be armed if they chose to be.
I'm not arguing that the GFSZA is Constitutional, I'm just making the point that rights aren't absolute and weren't, even at the time they were written. |
September 20, 2012, 04:38 PM | #15 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The problem that I have with "Commerce Clause" based legislation, is that both the Legislature and the Courts have bought into the fallacy that "once in commerce, always in commerce."
The inescapable logic is that once an item is bought by the consumer, it falls out of commerce. The reach of congress does not continue once the item no longer moves in commerce. Here, the feds have legislated in an area that is wholly a State police power. Sadly, I am in the minority. Sadder still, this logic does not sway the Courts. |
September 20, 2012, 05:00 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
|
@Al Norris,
You would think that it would be difficult for posession of something to be a federal crime if the power that Congress latched onto for making it was the Commerce Clause. I think part of the problem is that you have a federal court defining federal power. Why would those federal judges ever limit or roll back federal power? |
September 20, 2012, 05:18 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
It seems every federal law that deals with firearms contains the term "a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce'.
I believe that could be the reason why the ATF has failed to go after the states that have the "Made in X" laws, such as Montana, Wyoming, etc. It's gonna open up a whole can of worms those laws hold up.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
September 20, 2012, 10:22 PM | #18 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Yes, but we also know that according to Raich, something that has never moved in interstate commerce (a purely intrastate movement), can affect interstate commerce. Hence it may be regulated.
|
September 20, 2012, 10:57 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
And Wickard before that.
|
September 21, 2012, 11:35 AM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Once bear is firmly established outside the home, I'm hoping this particularly transparent and bald-faced abuse of the commerce clause will finally be vulnerable to a challenge. Whatever the scope of the commerce clause, it is doubtful that it was ever intended to obliterate a fundamental unenumerated right.
Al, I have never heard the argument "once in commerce, always in commerce." That's absurd on its face. I would love to hear Gura shred that to pieces someday. Also, wasn't there some speculation that Justice Roberts planted a poison pill for the commerce clause in the Obamacare ruling? Does anybody know whether that may be relevant in the future with regard to gun free school zones? |
September 24, 2012, 12:33 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,832
|
Reading the federal version, dropping off my kid while on the way to the range would be prohibited unless every gun is in a locked container?
__________________
I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|