Constitutional Carry vs. Gun Free School Zones

[random guy]

Contacting the president could not hurt although I might put more hope in principled Constitutionalists in Congress to get the ball rolling.

I don't necessarily have a problem with GFSZs but the 1000 ft extension past school grounds seems ludicrous and arbitrary. It is undoubtedly broken an incredible number of times every day by otherwise lawful people going about their business. If the best we can say about a law is that it shouldn't be and rarely will be enforced, there is something wrong with that law.

If the offense were a lesser crime, I wouldn't worry much about it. A felony is a life changer though.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Correct. Which is why I have been suggesting that we contact President Trump to encourage him to follow-through on the national carry reciprocity legislation, but to also make certain to mention that national carry reciprocity is mostly useless without either a significant revision to, or (preferably) repeal of, the GFSZ law.

The simplest fix would be to tweak the law so that any permit satisfies the exemption, not only a permit from the state in which the school is located. But that doesn't do anything for "Constitutional carry."

Here ya go.

Start making contact with your legislators to get this Bill passed.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...e-bill/34/text

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by random guy

Contacting the president could not hurt although I might put more hope in principled Constitutionalists in Congress to get the ball rolling.

Bwah-hah-hah ...

Good luck finding one of those.

Originally Posted by random guy

I don't necessarily have a problem with GFSZs but the 1000 ft extension past school grounds seems ludicrous and arbitrary.

I can live with a law that makes it illegal to carry into a school building -- but my daughter is several years out of high school, so it doesn't affect me all that much. However, I occasionally take adult ed classes, and later this year I may be teaching an adult ed class. At the least, a GFS (not GFSZ) law should only apply to the building (akin to the federal 18 USC 930), at least allowing an armed citizen to drive onto the property and leave a firearm secured in his or her vehicle.

Of course, that's useless if a shooter enters the building. As we here all know, the problem with criminals is that the rascals just don't ... obey ... the ... laws. Hence, to repeat an oft-repeated truth, the only thing these laws accomplishes is to disarm the people who aren't the problem in the first place. Look at how many laws were broken at Sandy Hook Elementary School. I think one article at the time cited eighteen laws broken. How much MORE illegal could anything possibly have been, and yet the shooter nonetheless killed 22 children, two administrators, and at least one teacher. (IIRC)

Originally Posted by random guy

If the best we can say about a law is that it shouldn't be and rarely will be enforced, there is something wrong with that law.

My great-grandfather was a professor of law. We were raised to believe exactly this. Laws that are seldom (and randomly) enforced are worse than no laws at all, because they breed disrespect for the law.

[44 AMP]

The simplest fix would be to tweak the law so that any permit satisfies the exemption,

NO!!!

The simplest fix, other than removing the law entirely is to remove the 1,000ft rule, and simply have it read "on school property".

Since there has been no rash of school shootings (or even any???) from OFF school property, aimed at people ON school property, let alone from more than 1,000 feet off school property, I would think this would have the least objection, and it avoids the requirement of ANY permit.

While I believe every state should recognize every other states permits & licenses, I am against the idea of a national carry "order", law, or permit system, as currently proposed. Simply put, I see no way any "top down" system will not violate someone's rights.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

NO!!!

The simplest fix, other than removing the law entirely is to remove the 1,000ft rule, and simply have it read "on school property".

I accept the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Upper US.

[JimPage]

^^^^^^^

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Most people really don't understand the law because they have not studied it. And to understand the law, one needs to actually study it. Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out."

I suspect the main problem is that a lot of people basically try to impose what they think a law should say in place of what it actually says.

[44 AMP]

I suspect the main problem is that a lot of people basically try to impose what they think a law should say in place of what it actually says.

The main problem is that English is an interpreted language. Words have multiple uses, and definitions. Two people with different viewpoints can read the exact same text and fully and honestly believe it supports their viewpoint, and not the other.

How many times in your life have you had someone explain to you how what something says is different from what it means??

When the highest official in the land argues about the meaning of the word "is", is it any wonder?

My personal gripe, the one I run into most often is people asking me to verify information. Then, they won't give me the information to verify, they expect me to just provide it to them.

That's not what verify means, but they can't seem to understand that.

[FITASC]

How many times in your life have you had someone explain to you how what something says is different from what it means??

Like this old goodie? (Used to have it posted outside of my office cube back in the day:

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
-- Robert McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman, at a press
briefing during the Vietnam War

[Aguila Blanca]

Back in the Vietnam era, there were two books that addressed this, aimed particularly at government double-speak and obfuscation (often caused by people with small minds attempting to sound intelligent by using words that were too large to fit into their vocabularies). The books were Strictly Speaking and A Civil Tongue, both by Edwin Newman.

Recommended reading if you can find a copy.

[tony pasley]

There has been a court ruling back in the late 1990s that ruled public streets and state and federal highways were exempt from any school zone they passed through. The case was brought about because of a man who lived within the 1,000 feet of a school and was a avid shooter at a range away from his home which he would travel to.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by tony pasley

There has been a court ruling back in the late 1990s that ruled public streets and state and federal highways were exempt from any school zone they passed through. ....

Phooey! You need to cite the case. If you don't cite the case we can't decide whether or not you're correct about it.

So as a general rule, without a citation the case doesn't exist.

[random guy]

Seems like my reply from last night disappeared.

Yeah, the case as described doesn't sound right. If there is a right to carry a gun loaded and readily accessible, it would probably not be for the purpose of traveling to a shooting range.

Some states are more likely to convict or even prosecute than others and maybe that is part of the process of changing this law. But at this point the law still stands regardless of whether individuals "caught a break".

[Al Norris]

The case that tony pasley and random guy were thinking of, was US v Lopez. Decided in 1995.

The case struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), as an overreach of the commerce clause. After the case was decided, the Congress revised the law to include the necessary "hooks" the Court said were lacking. No conviction under the revised law has been overturned.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

The case that tony pasley and random guy were thinking of, was US v Lopez. Decided in 1995.

The case struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q), as an overreach of the commerce clause. After the case was decided, the Congress revised the law to include the necessary "hooks" the Court said were lacking. No conviction under the revised law has been overturned.

If Lopez is indeed the case that tony pasley was thinking of (and we can't be sure since he didn't provide a citation), that his comment is really moot. The statute is different now.

[Aguila Blanca]

Tony Pasley referred to a case hinging on public streets and highways running through a school zone. Lopez involved a high school student who was busted with a handgun ON school prperty. That case didn't involve a discussion of roads and streets running through the zone.

I hope Mr. Pasley will come back and identify the case he had in mind.

[random guy]

Lopez was indeed the case that I referred to in my deleted post from last night but it is obviously nothing like the case Tony describes.