The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 31, 2014, 02:21 PM   #26
Uncle Buck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,565
Grizz, is this what you are referencing?

https://gunowners.org/oped2192014ab.htm

Quote:
a recent report by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel which details how ATF agents operating stings in six different cities “took advantage of the mentally ill, set up stings near churches and schools and made decisions which some claim actually increased crime in their neighborhoods.”
Oops, I see AB has already posted a reference.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.
Uncle Buck is offline  
Old March 31, 2014, 11:41 PM   #27
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 311
I started a thread here on that sting a few months ago. Grizz described a sting in which the feds opened a gun store in a school zone, which isn't what happened here. If Grizz was referring to that story he misremembered a few key details.
Armed_Chicagoan is online now  
Old April 1, 2014, 08:44 AM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,689
If you Google "BATFE sting operations" you'll find any number of articles describing multiple BATFE operations in different cities, in which they opened head shops or storefronts in school zones and then set out intentionally to entice underage kids to buy guns from them or for them. Enticements included booze, probably marijuana, and in a couple of instances free tattoos.

In brief, the BATFE wasn't catching criminals, they were creating criminals. Can we spell E-N-T-R-A-P-M-E-N-T, class?

But it's all good. They're from the government, they're here to help.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 10:05 AM   #29
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
And for those who travel, people have pointed out that your home state's permit doesn't work for a school zone in the other state you may be visiting. Apparently even if that state recognizes your permit for the purposes of concealed carry in fit of unimaginable stupidity, it doesn't count for the Federal law.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 11:14 AM   #30
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,303
Quote:
(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 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;
If my out-of-state permit to carry is accepted by another "State" as valid, does it not meet the criteria above?
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 11:37 AM   #31
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
I don't know, but not from what I've been given to understand from discussions on here. Some technical language thing where the state recognizes the permit, but didn't actually issue it so didn't license you. I don't know.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 03:18 PM   #32
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve4102
If my out-of-state permit to carry is accepted by another "State" as valid, does it not meet the criteria above?
No. Your out-of-state permit was not issued by the state in which the GFSZ is located. The law is very clear and specific:

Quote:
(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 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;
This does not say "If the individual possessing the firearm also possesses a permit recognized by the State in which the school zone is located," it says "... is licensed by the State ..."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 04:07 PM   #33
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,303
But, if the State recognizes my out-of state licence as valid are they not indeed issuing Me a license to carry in their state? Therefore meeting this criteria,

possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 04:22 PM   #34
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 149
Quote:
But, if the State recognizes my out-of state licence as valid are they not indeed issuing Me a license to carry in their state? Therefore meeting this criteria,
No, they are not.

Read strictly, that means if you are in, say, Florida, you need a license in your possession that says issued by the State of Florida. There is no reason to read the code any other way.

It's more than a Good Idea to obey Federal law.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 05:13 PM   #35
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
This does not say "If the individual possessing the firearm also possesses a permit recognized by the State in which the school zone is located," it says "... is licensed by the State ..."
I have some questions...

Doesn't that standard actually make it HARDER to get the "full faith and credit" when another state recognizes your permit?

Could a state- in theory at least, craft legislation stating recognized permits are for all purposes equal to those permits issued by the state itself or some such? Federal trumps State obviously, so it would have to be designed in a way that is obviously trying to get to this end... in such a way as to recognize them for this, without forcing people to go through the red tape and expense of getting and maintaining another piece of paper.

For that matter A) is that a grounds to challenge that narrow part of the law on, and B) If so, has it been done? C) What possible compelling government interest is there in making someone double up on an official piece of paper, generating more records, expenses, and wallet bloat, to do the exact same thing?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 06:19 PM   #36
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve4102
But, if the State recognizes my out-of state licence as valid are they not indeed issuing Me a license to carry in their state?
No.

Stop trying to read what you wish it said, and read what it does say.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 1, 2014, 07:02 PM   #37
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,303
I'm not trying to read anything into it.

If the Laws were so damn cut and dried and meant exactly what they said, we wouldn't need Lawyers and a Supreme Court now wold we.
steve4102 is offline  
Old April 2, 2014, 03:44 AM   #38
JimmyR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,012
Linguistic Gymnastics Silver medal

Steve, sometimes the laws are clear, sometimes not. This is a case where they are.

When you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve4102
But, if the State recognizes my out-of state licence as valid are they not indeed issuing Me a license to carry in their state? Therefore meeting this criteria,
You lost all sense of logic.

There is a difference between a state honoring a license and issuing a license. They don't issue you anything. If I drive into Kentucky, the state doesn't give me a Kentucky Driver's License. They just honor the fact that I have one from my home state of Indiana.
JimmyR is offline  
Old April 2, 2014, 09:17 AM   #39
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
If the Laws were so damn cut and dried and meant exactly what they said, we wouldn't need Lawyers and a Supreme Court now wold we.
Quote:
Steve, sometimes the laws are clear, sometimes not. This is a case where they are.
In addition, sometimes when they're clear, they still aren't valid. Sometimes unintended consequences come into play when it interacts with another law to boot.
JimDandy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12383 seconds with 7 queries