Bill Clinton’s Gun Free School Zones Act was one of the most irresponsible pieces of legislation ever signed into law. Uncle Sam’s decree that Americans’ right to keep and bear arms ends at the school gates is not only unconstitutional, it puts our children in harm’s way. Specifically, the Act prohibits an otherwise law-abiding citizen from bringing a firearm “within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.” Local governments can amend or suspend the GFSZA. In those that don’t . . .
parents dropping-off or picking-up their kids from school can’t be in possession of a gun – not even if it’s stored in the trunk of their car (or the farthest part of he SUV away from the driver) in a locked container with the ammunition stored separately. Practically, that means that parents can’t carry for most if not all of their day. wndu.com reports that Indiana’s fixin’ to fix that.
An Indiana legislative committee has endorsed a proposal that would allow guns in school parking lots.
The House Public Policy Committee approved the bill Tuesday after adding the school gun provision to a bill that would prohibit local governments from using taxpayer money for gun buy-back programs.
The addition to the bill would allow guns to be locked and out of sight in a car in a school parking lot. Currently, bringing a gun on school property is a felony.
Republican Rep. Jim Lucas of Seymour says the provision would protect parents who inadvertently have their guns with them when they pick up their children.
Inadvertently? Why would someone carry a gun “inadvertently”? The provision protects parents who want to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms to, I dunno, protect their children. Anyway, who could possibly object to a legally armed American driving onto school property with his or her firearm locked-up and out-of-sight? Yup, you guessed it . . .
Members of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America held up signs protesting the proposal.
Because guns! Seriously, is there any better example of the fact that MDA’s claim that they support the Second Amendment is prima facie false? If not, I’m sure there’ll be another one soon enough. Meanwhile, who will rid me of this troublesome GFSCZA?
It’s like they think there were no gun laws in CT and that if there were Adam Lanza would have just stayed home and hung himself.
I know in reality many anti-gun people are socipathic power hungry freaks who want the regular citizen to be weak and unarmed… but there definitely really are people who think laws on paper would stop these mass shooters… or more specifically… more laws on paper.
My response to that is, murder is illegal yet still does not stop criminals from killing. No matter how many guns laws they draft, anyone with no regard for laws will ultimately ignore them. Only those who follow and respect the law are punished by more gun laws.
One of my sisters unfortunately hooked up with a bad dude many years ago. He had many run ins with the law over his brutish life, but admitted to one of his/her children, after he had kidnapped them from her and spirited them to Arizona for 12 years, that when he was about ten years old he was an orphan in a Catholic school in Chicago. He was sent for disciplinary reasons to the principal’s office and in order to avoid the confrontation he knew was coming he dropped a match in a dumpster on the way, hoping the fire alarm would distract the school officials. In the ensuing fire over a dozen children in the school building were burned to death and many others injured. He never admitted his part in the crime otherwise and was never suspected, charged or prosecuted for it.
Sorry, people, guns are NOT the problem.
Matches are the problem?
People are the problem, more specifically the mind of a person that does not value the lives of others and is willing to commit violent acts.
The comment was a joke, Marcus LOL
And look at this treasonous garbage just submitted in Rhode Island. These self professed “do-gooders” are so convinced of their own motives that they are willing to desecrate the graves of the thousands of Rhode Island’s war veterans in order to fluff up their progressive political portfolios.
If these people cared at all about the children, they would do well to teach them not to be sheep.
A few years back, someone produced a great info-graphic. It mapped out these 2000 foot diameter circles in some urban area. I can’t remember the city. Half the city was covered in NO GO territory. Looked like London during the blitz….I have nearly given up on this country. The level of insanity with which we are compelled to deal with each and every day is straight out of dystopian novels of decades ago.
I believe it was Phoeniz, AZ. At least the one I saw
Does this mean open carry is effectively impossible in Phoenix?
If you do not have a license to carry then yes, it is almost impossible to carry openly or concealed without running afoul of the federal gun free school zones act.
This would mean constitutional carry has little meaning. And yet, it is supposedly alive and well in AZ. What gives?
This is my biggest problem with the GFSZ. It would at least be somewhat palatable if it simply said no guns on school property, as I have zero reason to set foot on any school’s property.
I just don’t get how the government can restrict a right on potential private property within 1000 feet of a school.
Please don’t give up on this country…we no longer have enough real estate to make new ones.
Not quite, we still have Antarctica, only 1 small settlement too. We could ship the anti gun crowd over there and they can go nuts, enact whatever silly rules they desire then break them when convenient. Personally that would not bother me.
If it saves just one one penguin ! Think of the baby birds !
I would love to see them try to hug a leopard seal.
This is one for San Francisco: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2337 You can go to the park, and now that it is not a military installation, the Presidio. Damn near impossible to travel. No wonder Winkler recommends that California go back to unloaded open carry (and eliminate CCW altogether), as it results in a virtual carry ban.
HOLY CRAP….that is pretty much what I saw elsewhere. Un-freaking believable. Tks for the link !
I wonder if some reader of TTAG with some more pronounced Google fu abilities might produce for a couple of other urban areas a similar map using Google maps? Just to show the general insanity of this law…..Maybe someone has done this already?
Except that California CCW permit holders in CA are exempted from the GFSZA. (See Cal. Penal Code, section 626.9(c)(4)).
Did they also drop in Federal buildings, military installations, banks, bars, and Starbucks© ? I would love to see it then.
Maybe they should just show the “go” zones.
So once again Moms Demand Action dance upon the graves of kids killed in Gun Free School Zones. How nice!!
Hmm seems to me the various Anti Gun people are gettin pretty good at dancing on graves and waving bloody shirts but aren’t worth a damn at doing anything that requires knowledge and common sense be used. Every State should repeal the GFSZA and allow carry in your personal vehicle on school grounds.
Got a valid CHCL? Check in at the door and wait on your kiddies!! Pretty simple solution. I don’t know of very many if any schools that can afford to hire a LEO for each building on the campus!! Costs to schools and States would be astronomical in the long run!
Glad NC made some gun reforms last year and I can now carry my gun on school property and leave it locked in my car. Wish they would allow concealed carry on campus, but this is a step in the right direction.
Actually, the George H. W. Bush Gun Free Schools Zones Act of 1990 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995).
The Gun Free School Zones Act that we’re complaining about now was passed as part of an Omnibus Crime Bill by everybody’s favorite gungrabber, Bill Clinton, in 1996.
So complain about GFSZs all you want, but the law we’re dealing with is Bill Clinton’s baby, not George Bush’s. The Bush era bill hasn’t been around since 1995.
Makes sense. If your law is declared unconstitutional by the courts, just pass it again with a new name. See that. Fixed.
The GFSZA of 1995 was simply an amendment of the 1990 act to ensure it was not in violation with the Commerce Clause as determined by the Lopez case. The meat and potatoes of the 1990 act is still there.
The 1996 Act did not amend the 1990 Act. It was a new law incorporating new language that Janet Reno decided would satisfy SCOTUS. The law is all Bill Clinton.
Complete and utter bullshit. It’s the same idea and the same law for all practical purposes with a couple clauses thrown in to get out from under the Supreme Court. Only the most intellectually dishonest argument could suggest a hair of difference between the two in practical effect or intent.
So what? SCOTUS knocked it down, Clinton revived it (and probably you), and you’re still blaming Bush.
True colors. They do show.
So what? The same law is passed by both houses of Congress six years apart, the only change being a modification of a single sentence to comply with the Commerce Clause requirements imposed by the Supreme court, and you think that it’s Clinton’s fault? Try the whole damn government.
I think that the general population is finally catching on that “Shannon’s Merrie Maidz Wanna” is a lie from top to bottom. As evidenced by the Texas Chapter being able to meet in a restaurant booth not long ago.
Then let’s encourage MDA to persist being the strident extremists they are so they continue to bore people with their ever more debunked twisted logic. The more irrelevant Maids Demand Action becomes the better. MDA’s affiliation with MAIG likewise is a net gain for us as in my view it exposes MAIG by association.
Boring is good, and I think these grabbers are really starting to bore a lot more of the sheeple population than they could ever hope to convince with their increasingly clear extremist message.
It’s the leftist media, and Herr Bloomberg’s influence money that we must be most wary of.
I’ve always wondered, is there an allowance for driving by a school with a firearm in your car, or is it a strict 1000′ no matter what? That’s got to be the most common felony committed in this country if it’s the latter.
Could end up being the worst speeding ticket of your life if you get pulled over in front of a school. I would be interested in the answer to this as well.
The federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(q), requiring firearms to remain outside of 1,000 feet of a “school zone” has exceptions for individuals who are licensed to carry a
firearm by the jurisdiction (state or local) where the school zone sits.
Therefore, in Kansas where I am licensed, I have a built in exception to the general rule In Kansas…licensees from other states, however, do not have this same exception while traveling in Kansas.
What about if you LIVE within 1000 yards of a school? I live within 1000 yards of TWO schools, as a matter of fact. In Taos, I lived across the street from Taos High. I never much worried about the law, but it’s still something I’d be interested in knowing.
Have there been any court rulings in that regard? There has to be some, right?
Still good if you have a permit by your state. That’s one reason some constitutional states offer permits to those who want one (in addition to reciprocity).
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(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;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
In Wisconsin, with a CCW, you can toe right up to the property line.
Funny thing, my house boarders school property accross the street, the city owns about 8 feet of the yard that I mow. So without a CCW, I could be a felon for standing in the wrong spot in my own yard or parking my car at the curb and dashing the 8 ft of no mans land.
So what is this talk about “Common Sense” gun laws?
Yes, without a CCL there is no way you can legally carry in Milwaukee.
724.4A Weapons free zones — enhanced penalties.
1. As used in this section, “weapons free zone” means the area in or on, or within one
thousand feet of, the real property comprising a public or private elementary or secondary
school, or in or on the real property comprising a public park. A weapons free zone shall not
include that portion of a public park designated as a hunting area under section 461A.42.
2. Notwithstanding sections 902.9 and 903.1, a person who commits a public offense
involving a firearm or offensive weapon, within a weapons free zone, in violation of this
or any other chapter shall be subject to a fine of twice the maximum amount which may
otherwise be imposed for the public offense.
94 Acts, ch 1172, §53
724.4B Carrying weapons on school grounds — penalty — exceptions.
1. A person who goes armed with, carries, or transports a firearm of any kind, whether
concealed or not, on the grounds of a school commits a class “D” felony. For the purposes of
this section, “school” means a public or nonpublic school as defined in section 280.2.
2. Subsection 1 does not apply to the following:
a. A person listed under section 724.4, subsection 4, paragraphs “b” through “f” or “j”.
b. A person who has been specifically authorized by the school to go armed with, carry,
or transport a firearm on the school grounds, including for purposes of conducting an
instructional program regarding firearms.
I don’t see any exceptions. 1000′ is about 2 city blocks. And if you live a block and a half from a school do you just not get to have constitutionally protected rights? My guess is that you’d never be prosecuted for this for fear of the entire law being struck down by the courts.
Actually, upon rereading that law it appears that the 1000′ only applies to the doubling of fines for illegal use of a firearm. The felony part says ‘on school grounds’, not within 1000′.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.
724.28 Prohibition of regulation by political subdivisions.
A political subdivision of the state shall not enact an ordinance regulating the ownership,
possession, legal transfer, lawful transportation, registration, or licensing of firearms when
the ownership, possession, transfer, or transportation is otherwise lawful under the laws of
this state. An ordinance regulating firearms in violation of this section existing on or after
April 5, 1990, is void.
90 Acts, ch 1147, §9
So technically, you can’t even have a pocket knife? How about keys in your pocket? Those can certainly be used as a “weapon”.
724.4 Carrying weapons.
1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who goes armed with a dangerous
weapon concealed on or about the person, or who, within the limits of any city, goes armed
with a pistol or revolver, or any loaded firearm of any kind, whether concealed or not, or
who knowingly carries or transports in a vehicle a pistol or revolver, commits an aggravated
2. A person who goes armed with a knife concealed on or about the person, if the person
uses the knife in the commission of a crime, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
3. A person who goes armed with a knife concealed on or about the person, if the person
does not use the knife in the commission of a crime:
a. If the knife has a blade exceeding eight inches in length, commits an aggravated
b. If the knife has a blade exceeding five inches but not exceeding eight inches in length,
commits a serious misdemeanor.
4. Subsections 1 through 3 do not apply to any of the following:
a. A person who goes armed with a dangerous weapon in the person’s own dwelling or
place of business, or on land owned or possessed by the person.
…e. A person who for any lawful purpose carries an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
dangerous weapon inside a closed and fastened container or securely wrapped package which
is too large to be concealed on the person.
f. A person who for any lawful purpose carries or transports an unloaded pistol or revolver
in a vehicle inside a closed and fastened container or securely wrapped package which is too
large to be concealed on the person or inside a cargo or luggage compartment where the
pistol or revolver will not be readily accessible to any person riding in the vehicle or common
g. A person while the person is lawfully engaged in target practice on a range designed
for that purpose or while actually engaged in lawful hunting.
h. A person who carries a knife used in hunting or fishing, while actually engaged in lawful
hunting or fishing.
i. A person who has in the person’s possession and who displays to a peace officer on
demand a valid permit to carry weapons which has been issued to the person, and whose
conduct is within the limits of that permit. A person shall not be convicted of a violation of
this section if the person produces at the person’s trial a permit to carry weapons which was
valid at the time of the alleged offense and which would have brought the person’s conduct…
So, I’m good to go. Cool.
I drive within 1,000 yards of two schools on my way to and from the range every week. The deputies know my car from seeing it at the range, and I’ve yet to be stopped.
Selective non-enforcement? I dunno.
FOPA applies to driving by a school for someone who is not licensed to carry, which means unloaded and in a locked container. The details of the locked container do vary from state to state, some allowing the glove box or center consol if lockable, others (e.g. California) do not. Also, FOPA allows a container in the passenger compartment as long as there is a lock between the firearm and any passenger. Trunk is always the safest bet–out of sight out of mind–if you do not have a license.
The GFSZA does not apply to private property located within a zone, and at least in theory you should be able to open carry in your own yard. However, at least one California Superior Court Appellate Department (not the Court of Appeal)decision held that any area of private property “open to public access” is not “private property” within the meaning of the law–there must be a fence or gate “keeping” the general public out. (In that case, defendant was convicted for misdemeanor possessing a firearm in his driveway. The case is persuasive, not binding authority outside of Los Angeles, but it gives you an idea how far a court may go to affirm a conviction.) And I seem to recall that Chicago tried (or did?) impose an ordinance after McDonald allowing carry “in” the home–but not outside the home, not on the front porch, and not even in one’s own garage. Ezell v. Chicago may have challenged those limitations, but I do not know the current status.
Could we just sell California and Illinois to the Chinese to settle up our debt? Well, maybe just Chicago and everything west of the coastal mountains? Do you think they’d go for that?
I wonder about that myself as Every route from home to work and back goes through a school zone. And being as I ride a bike most of the time it would be hard to roll up the windows and lock the doors If I was unarmed!! Hmmm!
Get a lockable gun case–may be a gun rug even–and lock your UNloaded gun inside, and you are in compliance with the law. As a general rule, if you do not consent to a search, a warrant is required to open that container. But don’t expect the police to know–or to acknowledge– this.
I can tell you who inadvertently carries a gun. Every cop and other government official who tries to get through airport security and gets stopped. They usually say they didn’t mean to and they forgot the gun was with them or their bag.
And the gun control advocate in Buffalo last week.
Allowing parents to keep their guns in their vehicle while in a school parking lot is sensible.
One example I’ve heard involves a mother who has a CCW, drops her child off at school in the morning, stays out all day, and then returns to pick up her child.
If she’s exercising her right to carry a concealed handgun it isn’t sensible to create a law that requires her to drive home, drop her gun off at home, and then immediately leave their to pick up her child because of the 1,000 foot rule.
This allows parents to lawfully carry their gun throughout the day, pick up their kid from school, and then go about their day without a law that makes it impractical to carry a pistol in the first place.
The federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(q), requiring firearms to remain outside of 1,000 feet of a “school zone” has exceptions for individuals who are licensed to carry a firearm by the jurisdiction (state or local) where the school zone sits.
Each jurisdiction may have different and more or less stringent requirements, even for those with (unconstitutional) permits.
For instance, in Washington state it is legal for a CPL holder to carry their pistol up to, but not into, the school building when on the premises to drop off or pick up a student. Other states, not so much. It is your responsibility to read, know and understand your local laws. They may ALL be unconstitutional, but they will still get your ass thrown in jail while you wait for the lawyers to drain your bank account and SCOTUS to decide the Second Amendment means what it says.
My house sits a mere 400 feet from a local school. Good thing my state doesn’t recognize the GFSZ laws.
What if an FBI agent catches you off your property without a CCCW/CHL?
What state is this anyway that doesn’t honor GFSZ’s?
And whats your address, name, SSN and GPS Lat Lon?
Does the 1000-yard “exclusionary zone” apply to any part of school property, or just the front of the property? I’m probably 300 yards from the rear of the property, but likely over 1000 (barely) from the front of it.
The zone technically extends 1000′ from ANY property line edge that constitutes school property, including all sport fields, gyms, auditoriums, yada yada. The zone will include all public property–streets, sidewalks–but excludes private property.
My backyard is a high school football practice field. I always feel a little worried when I drag my guns to the truck to go to the range because I am definitely only 50 feet from the edge of school property. The GFSZ act really needs to go to the dustbin of history as another ill conceived idea.
For the author of the article, please explain and cite your source for this statement:
“Local governments can amend or suspend the GFSZA.”
I don’t recall any portion of the law that allows for the suspension. Local states are not generally in the business of enforcing Federal laws, but that does not mean that the law is suspended. Local states can obviously enact their own laws that are similar, or even more strict, if they wish.
For other comment authors regarding private property, the law DOES exempt private property that lies within the 1,000 foot range of any school property:
“(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;”
However, it does not provide any means by which you may transport your firearm onto or off of your property without violating the 1,000 foot zone prohibition.
Also of note, there is NO provision for OFF-DUTY law enforcement officers, so if they are not specifically licensed to carry a firearm after having passed a background check by the state they are in, they are felons just as much as anyone else.
I regularly claim that his is the most heinous law on the books of the United States Code. It makes a felon out of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens every day.
While I am not a lawyer and cannot quote specifics of the GFSZA, in the State of Washington, per RCW 9.41.280, you may carry a concealed firearm on school property under Subsection (3)(e) for a Washington CPL holder to possess (carry) a pistol while picking up or dropping off a student.
The regulations of other states may differ. Before you carry in a GFSZA 1,000 yard area it would be wise to consult your local laws.
“However, it does not provide any means by which you may transport your firearm onto or off of your property without violating the 1,000 foot zone prohibition.”
Ah, Catch-a 22. I once asked a lawyer (who defended me in a concealed weapons case) about curtilage statutes, and he was vague in his answer. I don’t think he knew. He didn’t bother to find out, either.
The nature of the question pertained to the fact that the cops roared up as I reached the bottom step of my fire escape (3 stories, which was the only way to access my apartment, as the first floor was a tea room). They had the wrong guy, but arrested me anyway. The magistrate chewed the cop out up one side and down the other for bringing me in, because he should have only issued me a citation.
Ralph, this seems like a question you could address (although not specific statutes, I realize).
I had the distinct impression that I was nabbed in a training exercise, as the AO was a new transfer from a force in Ohio. (This happened in Richmond, VA)
Yeah I saw that clause too. It’s misinformation. States do not have the power to nullify a federal law. Written within the law is an exemption for permit-holders but that’s not the same thing.
But since the author also goes out of his way to call it “Bill Clinton’s” GFSA as if it weren’t Bush’s brainchild I don’t think anything up there can be trusted to be accurate.
WTF are you taking about?
Originally held as unconstitutional (United States v. Lopez). Note that the change they made to the law to make it ‘constitutional’ was to add that the firearm “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce”. Which presumably means that if you had a firearm that you made yourself it ‘should’ be fine.
Also, you can have the gun in your car (unloaded and locked in a container) because the act exempts a firearm if: “(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;”
I am only referring to the federal gun free school zones law here tho, states may enact more strict measures (as always but limited to constitutional authority)
“Which presumably means that if you had a firearm that you made yourself it ‘should’ be fine.”
Sadly, I don’t believe your presumption is correct. One of the big “commerce clause” cases from the Supreme Court ruled by analogy (growing wheat was the actual issue) that even if you build your own gun yourself, you are “affecting” interstate commerce, because you are NOT buying it from some other source. And yes, it’s a totally faulty argument, but it’s still the opinion of record. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
So if I go out to my mom and dad’s place in the country at night and take a piss off the back porch, I’ve affected interstate commerce by not using a toilet that was manufactured outside the state? Same warped-ass logic. What effing country is this?
There is a group of justices, headed by Thomas, who are dying to reverse Wickard.
Lopez was the first case since the 30s to reject a Commerce Clause claim by the Feds. It won’t be the last.
One hopes. It’s such an obvious end-run around the federal system (of having some authority held by states) that it should have never been allowed in the first place.
The fact that there is no real-life difference between the first (unconstitutional) GFSA and the second (“constitutional”) one shows how ridiculous the system can be when it comes to commerce.
I am familiar with that precedent, however a private individual making a single handgun for himself is distinguishable from a farmer growing wheat in excess of a government cap to feed his family. The Gun Free School Zone law is not a law governing the actual commerce in firearms. The issues in Filburn were much more directly related to commerce. In amending the GFSZA congress sought to attach a ‘commerce’ phrase, but that phrase is irrelevant to what is being regulated. IMO (and I am not lawyer or supreme court justice) it does not make the law any more constitutional than the first time it was struck down. To be honest I don’t think it would even need be a home-made gun, I think the GFSZA fails to have been changed to address the SCOTUS decision that struck it down.
Believe me, nobody is in front of me in line to get the GFZSA kicked out… but according to the Wiki article, there are quite a few cases since Lopez that have not been thrown out. I have not read them all and I have no doubt that they are all “bad” cases from the perspective of gun rights – most likely add-on charges to other terrible crimes. But this is just as bad, just because the Feds only choose to use it for “bad” cases, does not mean it’s not still a hammer held over the head of every law-abiding gun owner in the country, just waiting to drop.
Again, I believe those cases are distinguishable. For instance, the California Medical Marijuana case was a case of a person growing a ‘product’ in their own home that was also sold in interstate commerce, and their challenge to the federal law that regulated that very product being sold in interstate commerce (basically forbidding it). The GFSZA does not, in any way, regulate interstate commerce. Congress attempted to tie it to interstate commerce by tacking on the “if the gun was part of interstate commerce or significantly effects interstate commerce” junk, and the ninth circuit accepted that (as the eighth and ninth circuit is generally willing to rubber-stamp such things), but adding that phrase doesn’t really change the meat of the SCOTUS decision, IMO. My hypothetical of carrying a home-made gun would just be a way of pointing out the fallacy of the added phrase. The Eight in Danks stated specifically, “the firearm in question must have been shipped or transported in interstate commerce”, and the ninth in Dorsey “, “We agree with the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Danks, and follow our own precedent regarding § 922(g), in similarly resolving this issue.”
Personally I think that is a major stretch. But at least they have not (yet) taken the extraordinary step of trying to claim that a firearm that was never involved in interstate commerce effects interstate commerce enough to make banning the carrying of such within 1000′ of a public school, the regulation of which is not delegated to the federal government fall under the commerce clause.
Of course, we are just armchair quarterbacking things and until a case actually gets accepted by SCOTUS the law is doing what congress wanted it to do, constitutional or not.
We live in California, within 1000 feet of a school’s property. We are very, very careful to have our firearms secured within a locked container (the requirement for transport) to carry them between the house and a car, even if the car is parked in the driveway. To be safe, we prefer to back the car into the garage, so there’s no question whether we were in our curtilage or out in public.
Am I wrong? I though it was 1000 yards, not 1000 feet.
Feet. 1000 yards is almost 2/3 of a mile, 1000 feet is about .2 miles (roughly two city blocks). The original idea was to keep armed gang members and gang violence away from schools. It kind of overshot the mark.
Meanwhile in Michigan:
VIENNA TOWNSHIP, MI — Police were called to a Clio-area elementary school this week after a father legally carried a loaded pistol on his waist into the school building while picking up his daughter.
School officials said the incident at Edgerton Elementary raised concerns in some staff and students but law enforcement officials said the father was within his rights to carry the gun. Here’s a brief look the state laws governing the carrying of firearms:
Can you legally open carry a firearm in Michigan?
Yes. There is no state law specifically stating that citizens can open carry firearms but there is no state law that expressly prohibits it. Therefore, this has been interpreted to mean that open carry is allowed in this state — with a few exceptions.
In his case I would wager that he is a CPL holder. Michigan has two separate lists of pistol free zones: open carry without a CPL and concealed carry with a CPL. The concealed carry with a CPL list specifically says a CPL carrier is prohibited from carrying concealed in those places. The Michigan State Police has issued an opinion that the very specific wording of that portion of the law does, in fact, allow CPL holders to open carry in those places.
I remember the story, he is a CPL holder.
The legislature tried to change this part of Michigan law right around the time of Sandy Hook. The new law would have made it so that CPL holders could carry concealed in schools, but nobody could open carry in schools (with the usual exceptions for law enforcement and other members of the elite class). But due to Sandy Hook Governor Snyder vetoed the legislation stating that he would like to see a bill where individual school districts could ‘opt out’. That is unlikely to ever happen in Michigan, because it would fly in the face of Michigan’s State Pre-emption (which both Michiganders and Michiganians like very much).
Yes as long as you have a cpl open carry is lawful in schools and many other places. The new one is some lawmakers are trying to change the law for women or others that have a ppo(personal protection order) against someone to be able to lawfully conceal carry in all places currently off limits.
Yeah, Snyder is definitely not pro-2A. There were 5 or 6 good bills in front of him when Sandy Hook happened. The only one he signed was to repeal the permit to purchase a handgun. And even then he ONLY signed because it was amended to only repeal the permit. The original bill would have eliminated handgun registration entirely.
“Seriously, is there any better example of the fact that MDA’s claim that they support the Second Amendment is prima facie false? ”
Prima facia and in point of fact, no!
Pretty F..ped mess for sure. We need to get our congress critters to knock this one down.
I drive by multiple schools in different districts on a regular basis. Hell, on several occasions throughout the year I do it through multiple states. It always amazes me how stupid leftards are.
Bill Clinton – Uncle Sam? I don’t think so. Uncle Horndog, maybe. Uncle Serial Rap…. OOOPS! Almost strayed into a.h. territory!!
That was a CLOSE one! ;D
MDA is a case of the Clueless advocating the Pointless , thereby rendering
(Something I posted earlier on facebook)
I have to admit that when my wife was working at the nearby elementary school, I once stopped by on my motorcycle to drop something off for her. I had my CC in my backpack, and walked in the front door all the way to her room in the middle of a school day. This is a small rural elementary with no security.
If I was a bad guy, obviously the law would’ve not been very effective here.
So if my house is within 1000 ft of a school, does that mean I can’t carry on my own property? I can’t transport to and from my car? Or drive past the school on the way to the range? If I could CCW, I have to lock it up before I go out and get the mail? Or can local laws supersede this? Not that the People’s Republik of California would want to protect my rights or anything…
All your questions are answered above. In summary:
1. GFSZA does not apply to private property, but LA judges have concluded that that exemption does not apply to publicly accessible private property.
2. CCW holders are exempt. States vary as to carry ON school property, some allow it others do not. California allows it, but your issuing agency MAY impose reasonable restrictions, which MAY include a ban on carrying ON school property (e.g. Fresno PD).
3. Unloaded and in a locked case is an exception to the 1000′ foot zone, but not to carry ON school property
So if you are a Californian who is unable to get a CCW permit — the majority of Californians, in other words — and you live within 1000 of a school you can never lawfully take your gun out of your house for any purpose, nor ever lawfully bring a gun to your house.
Likewise the residents of Hawaii, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, etc.
This is clearly a violation of one’s rights under McDonald.
Indiana law already allows you to keep your firearm in your vehicle on school grounds, but only if you are picking up or dropping off a student.
Also, Clinton wasn’t president in 1990. That would be Bush the first.
The article is wrong on one part. In Indiana your were allowed to carry in your car provided you did not exit the vehicle when dropping off it picking up students.
Just Move To Utah. We Have Some Of TheBest Gun Laws In The Nation! You Can Have A Gun In Your Car And Even On Your Body And Go Into The School! There Isn’t A Better Place For Gun Freedom Then Good Ol’ Utah.
In PA, I have had to pick my son up at the high school at 10 PM after either lifeguard duty or a late return from a school ski trip or an away meet for his sports team. The times the parking lot is sometimes neither extremely well lit nor populated with other people, it would be good to be able to exercise my natural and constitutional right to be armed without commiting a felony to do so. Just like these dumb politicians think “bad guys” only work as loners and therefore we only need 5 or 6 six rounds to protect ourselves, they also think that declaring a place a GFZ will make everyone safe.
I love how RF changed “Bush’s GFSZA” to “Clinton’s GFSZA”. Clinton added one amendment to the Act, that’s it. The other 99% is all Bush Sr. The Brady Bill also was not Clinton’s creation. Reagan actually was the original champion behind that, it was just wasn’t passed until the Clinton admin. Hell Bush Sr even publicly denounced the NRA (after his presidency).
FTR, I’m very pro-2A. I just want to put blame where it belongs.
Except that the 1990 GFSZ law wasn’t “Bush’s” it was the work of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate which wrote the 1990 Crime Control Act and passed it with massive vero-proof majorities (313 to 1 in the House and an unopposed voice vote in the Senate).
But don’t let facts get in the way of your Bush Derangement Syndrome flare-up.
Say what you want but Bush’s “anti-gun” legacy is well documented.
Not all of the GOP has been pro-2A. Even Bush’s Democratic opposition in the TX Senate was more pro-gun than him.
My wife carries her .380 Bersa handgun daily since I bought it for her and taught her how to not only fire it, but carry and handle it with confidence, even in the dark. Her reason for carrying is the same as mine, to protect our children and ourselves from people who might wish to do us harm. That’s a no-brainer, right? She doesn’t go to the range quite as much as I do, but i make sure that she practices at least once a month to maintain her proficiency with her protection tool. Now our oldest daughter (who is getting pretty good with her .22 Cricket) is in kindergarten and my wife has to go to her school twice a day, once to drop her off and again to pick her up. The school is about 15 miles from our home, so when she leaves the house to pick or drop off my daughter, she tends to take care of other errands that need to be done as well. The school has a great reputation, but is not in the best of neighborhoods. My wife has been approached by more than one shady character while at the park next to the school with my three year old daughter, waiting for school to let out. My wife has many like minded friends, other parents of children that go to the same school. So if these women have to make themselves and their children more vulnerable because of this ridiculous law, how is it a law that protects anyone but the bad guys? More insane is that they cannot lock the weapons up in the glove box or even in the trunk and be legal. If a concealed carrying parent stopped a psycho at a school on a rampage, i doubt that the courts would even hold that parent as a hero. They would probably get more time behind bars than the psycho. Why are they trying to make being a victim our only option?