Constitutional Carry vs. Gun Free School Zones

[random guy]

First of all, congratulations to North Dakota on passing a Constitutional Carry law. But...

Something that has concerned me for a while is the potentially dangerous combination of the laws in the thread title. It is very difficult where I live to go anywhere without traversing several school zones. Doing so with a loaded gun on your person or in your vehicle is a federal felony. In fact, coming within 1000 feet of school property is a felony. One of the few exceptions is given to those who have a state CCW permit but those who practice "permit-less carry" have no such immunity.

Taken at face value, we are to either reach our destination and IF we are outside the 1000 ft buffer zone, then unlock our gun and load it, OR go through this same procedure every time we pass through a GFSZ.

In the real world, most will ignore the GFSZ prohibition while driving or they will for the most part give up on Constitutional Carry.

I have talked with some of the local CC movers about this concern and received a non-answer. I have talked to LEOs who have poo pooed the possibility that a general lawful person would have their life ruined by a simple traffic stop due to this conflict. The officers I talked to are good guys and undoubtedly would not set out to burn average people. But not all officers think as they do.

I'd like to know if other states have addressed the situation if it is even possible. The real solution is probably at the federal level. Perhaps when Constitutional Carry states reach a certain percentage (currently at 25% of states) the GFSZA can be amended to consider the fact.

Your thoughts?

[jmhyer]

I may not have a satisfactory answer but...

If you are worried about it and an exception is allowed for permit holders, then get a permit. That's why I will maintain my permit, even though my state now has permitless (Constitutional) carry. My state (and many others) also recognizes my car as an extension of my home, which is another reason I don't worry.

[Aguila Blanca]

Your concern is valid, and the problem is real. The same concern extends to the possibility of a national reciprocity law at the federal level -- the GFSZ law only grants exception to those with a carry permit from the jurisdiction in which the school zone is located.

The only solution, which is unlikely to happen, would be to repeal or significantly revise the GFSZ law.

[random guy]

Thank you both for your thoughts. I may go ahead and get a CCW permit to cover this legal glitch. I doubt that the general public will do so though and it will be interesting to see the outcome when overzealous officers nail soccer mom(s) or dad(s) to the wall. That might be the catalyst needed to change the GFSZ law.

Here is perhaps a reason to be hopeful though. Just how likely is it that state and local officers would enforce a strictly federal law anyway? I really don't know.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jmhyer

......My state (and many others) also recognizes my car as an extension of my home, which is another reason I don't worry. ...

Why do you think that matters? The GFSZ law under discussion is a federal law.

Originally Posted by Random guy

...Just how likely is it that state and local officers would enforce a strictly federal law anyway? I really don't know.

There's no way to know. Since it is federal law it may also be enforced by federal officers. And while it's no doubt low priority a strange confluence of factors could both call attention to a violation and provide the impetus to enforce the law. Are you happy trusting your fate to luck?

[FITASC]

Your concern is valid, and the problem is real.

OK, I'll disagree. My wife and I travel a lot every year - 10,000+ in that regard. We avoid Interstate and prefer 2-lane highways. We always turn a corner and WHAM - there's a local town's school on that road. Am I supposed to stop, back up 1000', get out, partially disrobe, and unload, lock things up, etc, etc, etc? Legally, yes (and I am NOT advocating breaking the law), but practicality and common sense need to rule................ JMO, YMMV

[jmhyer]

Frank,
I mentioned my car as being recognized by my state as an extension of my home as ANOTHER reason...not the sole reason...that I don't worry about driving through school zones in my state. The primary reason, again, being that I possess and maintain an "enhanced" firearm (carry) permit in my state.

[random guy]

Am I supposed to stop, back up 1000', get out, partially disrobe, and unload, lock things up, etc, etc, etc? Legally, yes (and I am NOT advocating breaking the law), but practicality and common sense need to rule................ JMO, YMMV

We are on the same page however that does not make the problem go away. Seems to me that rolling back the "gun free zone" to actual school property would solve most of the problem. Or adding a right of safe passage thru the GFSZ.

Are you happy trusting your fate to luck?

Not really. Even less so if local law enforcement decides to add "Do you have a weapon in your car?" to their frequent drive thru checkpoints. Doubt they would open that can o' worms here and risk alienating the general public. Other jurisdictions are a lot more control oriented though.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FITASC

OK, I'll disagree. My wife and I travel a lot every year - 10,000+ in that regard. We avoid Interstate and prefer 2-lane highways. We always turn a corner and WHAM - there's a local town's school on that road. Am I supposed to stop, back up 1000', get out, partially disrobe, and unload, lock things up, etc, etc, etc? Legally, yes (and I am NOT advocating breaking the law), but practicality and common sense need to rule................ JMO, YMMV

What are you disagreeing with? That the OP's concern is valid, or that the problem is real?

You have just acknowledged that you apparently break the GFSZ law multiple times each year. How does that in any way make the OP's concern invalid, or the problem not real?

It seems that you are comfortable taking the risk of being caught and charged with violating the law. Some folks are perhaps more risk averse than you.

[g.willikers]

How about simply removing the firearm from your person while in the car?
And don't ever give permission to have the car searched during a stop.
Wouldn't that change the situation in your favor, since the gun is no longer actually on your person?
Just a thought.

[jmhyer]

I think, to be in compliance with the federal law (absent an exception such as being a permit holder in that state), that the firearm has to be unloaded and locked in a container (Re: lockbox). Not sure if just unloading and stowing in the trunk is technically adequate. But it definitely is supposed to be unloaded.

[random guy]

Pretty sure that jmhyer is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fr...990#Provisions

[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(snip)

(iii) that is—

(I) not loaded; and

(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

And that is extremely burdensome on those who are simply driving across town. Given the 1000 ft buffer zone, you could be 3 blocks away from a school, day care center etc, and still be committing a felony.

Maintaining a current CCW permit is about the only practical protection but then that basically eliminates the purpose of Constitutional Carry.

In practical terms, the two laws (as is) are incompatible for all but those who live in very sparsely populated areas. Even they could run afoul but the problem would be lessened.

Here is an interesting video of the law being abused. Skip to about 10:20 where the officers begin brainstorming to locate a GFSZ close enough to take an open carry activist into custody.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bm4mUkgPeeE

I have mixed feelings about such activism but the young man is by all indications calm, sane and up to nothing more, not to mention possessing a CCW permit which takes the issue off the table. How would this officer treat someone who does not have a permit?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jmhyer

Frank,
I mentioned my car as being recognized by my state as an extension of my home as ANOTHER reason...not the sole reason...that I don't worry about driving through school zones in my state. The primary reason, again, being that I possess and maintain an "enhanced" firearm (carry) permit in my state.

The point is that one avoid criminal liability under the federal GFSZ law by having the necessary permit (or having the gun unloaded and locked up). Absent that there's no reason to believe that the fact that state law considers the car an extension of one's home will do you any good.

[Tom Servo]

My state (and many others) also recognizes my car as an extension of my home, which is another reason I don't worry.

Are you sure about that? I live in Georgia, in which people have long cited an informal doctrine along those lines. In concrete terms, nowhere is any such thing mentioned in state codes, so it would be very difficult to defend myself from criminal charges along those lines.

[jmhyer]

Yes, I am sure about that in my state. Now, whether or not that law alone, would provide sufficient protection from federal prosecution, I can't say for sure. I would think it would be analogous to living a block away from a school, in which case I could have a gun in my home (though possessing it out in the yard might present a problem). In either situation, I'd hate to be the test case.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jmhyer

...I would think it would be analogous to living a block away from a school, in which case I could have a gun in my home (though possessing it out in the yard might present a problem)....

Again, why would you think that?

That is an example of the most common sort of error folks make when thinking about or discussing the law. These sorts of "common sense" analogies are very often wrong. People think a lot of thing are true that aren't true -- especially, it seems, with regard to legal matters. And unless you reached your conclusion based on a sound understanding of the law and some solid research, there's an excellent chance that what you think is true isn't true -- unless you managed to make a lucky guess.

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."

[jmhyer]

Thanks, Frank, for clearing up the fact that I never claimed that I was using anything other than common sense/logic/reasoning to explain my supposition and that, in fact, my statement that I'd hate to be the test case was an admission of exactly that.

[dajowi]

"In fact, coming within 1000 feet of school property is a felony."

So even traveling on a public highway???

If that's the law it's absurd, preposterous, and unenforceable.

[FITASC]

It seems that you are comfortable taking the risk of being caught and charged with violating the law. Some folks are perhaps more risk averse than you.

And some folks WAY overthink every move they make and allow serious false risks of being caught as they travel to stifle their thoughts, travels and thinking.

Maybe you live where the cops have these serious tools that can see guns and bullets through steel trunks, gun cases, etc. - not so where I live. I am not saying to be a test case, but reality about making a turn on a small town highway suddenly makes me illegal because of where I turned?,,,,,,,,,Not sweating that one - you go ahead.

[random guy]

"In fact, coming within 1000 feet of school property is a felony."

So even traveling on a public highway???

If that's the law it's absurd, preposterous, and unenforceable.

Sadly true unless you have a state issued CCW permit or your firearms are unloaded and locked away. I'd say that it will go largely unenforced and hopefully the legal conflict will be addressed one day. All it would take to enforce it however is the will to do so, by an agency or one officer within an agency. The law seems pretty clear cut.

[44 AMP]

What about the people who LIVE within 1000ft of school property?

I don't hear about anybody busting them...

[random guy]

You're OK "(i) on private property not part of school grounds;"

Which rules out private school property with few exceptions.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dajowl

"In fact, coming within 1000 feet of school property is a felony."

So even traveling on a public highway???

Yes.

Originally Posted by dajowl

If that's the law it's absurd, preposterous, and unenforceable.

It is absurb and preposterous, but how do you figure it's unenforceable? The fact that it's rarely enforced doesn't mean that it's difficult to enforce if the aw-thaw-rih-tays choose to enforce it. It's really no different from permit laws. We all know that gang bangers routinely carry without benefit of permit (often including 'bangers who are prohibited persons) and they often aren't prosecuted. But, if they're caught with a "piece," they are arrested and prosecuted. Virtually no law is unenforceable.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jmhyer

Thanks, Frank, for clearing up the fact that I never claimed that I was using anything other than common sense/logic/reasoning to explain my supposition....

And I'm merely clearing up the fact that your supposition is worthless in case anyone is foolish enough to think that you might know something. Giving credence to such suppositions can get people into trouble.

If you don't have sound grounds for an opinion on a legal point, and you realize that you don't, why even bring it up? What could possibly be the value in a specious notion on a legal question?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by random guy

And that is extremely burdensome on those who are simply driving across town. Given the 1000 ft buffer zone, you could be 3 blocks away from a school, day care center etc, and still be committing a felony.

Maintaining a current CCW permit is about the only practical protection but then that basically eliminates the purpose of Constitutional Carry.

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."