Federal (ha ha) Gun-Free School Zone

[Statkowski]

1. Pennsylvania has no state equivalent thereto.
2. The "federal" statute does not apply if you possess an LTCF (recognized out-of-state licenses/permits/whatevers don't count).
3. The first federal statute on such was overturned by SCOTUS, but the second apparently has never been challenged.
4. Apparently nobody can cite a single case of a person being prosecuted in federal court for violation of the GFSZ as a stand-alone charge (although it was possibly done in addition to other charges).

The sovereign state of Montana has apparently nullified the federal GFSZ by state law, to wit:

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the people in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana constitution is
considered to be individually licensed and verified by the state of Montana within the meaning of the provisions regarding individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.
History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 317, L. 1995; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 29, L. 1997.

What would it take to get the same done here?

[ExCopInPhilly]

The real purpose of the gun free school zone goes to the establishment of drug free school zones, and the crack epidemic. On the federal side drugs plus gun = stiffer mandatory minimum, add the school zone, and you will be away for a while, then add school zone for both drugs and guns and it gave the federal law far more bite than state law, and the US Attorney had greater ability to prosecute, even if no Federal agencies were involved in the prosecution. Plus, mandatory minimums took leniency off the table.

[gnbrotz]

The real purpose of the gun free school zone goes to the establishment of drug free school zones, and the crack epidemic. On the federal side drugs plus gun = stiffer mandatory minimum, add the school zone, and you will be away for a while, then add school zone for both drugs and guns and it gave the federal law far more bite than state law, and the US Attorney had greater ability to prosecute, even if no Federal agencies were involved in the prosecution. Plus, mandatory minimums took leniency off the table.

I disagree. If that were the only motive, it could be done by prohibiting the use of firearms while engaged in criminal activity. It does not do that. It is an outright ban on all firearms within the 1000' zone unless you fit into one of the very narrow exceptions. There is no need to summarily outlaw guns separately in order to stiffen the penalties when they are used in the commission of a crime - simply have one sentence for the specific crime in question, and a stiffer sentence if a firearm was used during the commission. The outright ban is feel-good/do-nothing legislation.

[ExCopInPhilly]

Regardless of whether you disagree, that was a large portion of the intent. It is not a feel good law, it was intended to have very specific bite. The war on drugs is the rationale and thought process for quite a few laws, whether we agree with them or not.

[knight0334]

1. Pennsylvania has no state equivalent thereto.
2. The "federal" statute does not apply if you possess an LTCF (recognized out-of-state licenses/permits/whatevers don't count).
3. The first federal statute on such was overturned by SCOTUS, but the second apparently has never been challenged.
4. Apparently nobody can cite a single case of a person being prosecuted in federal court for violation of the GFSZ as a stand-alone charge (although it was possibly done in addition to other charges).

The sovereign state of Montana has apparently nullified the federal GFSZ by state law, to wit:



What would it take to get the same done here?

There has been a few.

This one specifically upheld the revised law as constitutional.
http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1136446

Other test cases.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1130008
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/173340
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/100426
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1142798
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/79680
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1668141
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/134604
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/177709

EDIT: that site is dead now.. will find those cases again. (copy-pasted from my archives). However there are several cases, also of one where an Alabama licensee was convicted because AL's license issuance doesn't require a background check therefor his license wasn't enough to provide exemption to the GFSZA

[MDJschool]

The real purpose of the GFSZA, as with most outright unlawful federal legislation which also hinges on creating crimes regarding conduct without victims is to deter people in being armed for fear of prosecution, and to make criminals and eventually slaves of more people.

I don't see how that Montana provisions address the 'background check' component of the GFSZA, but I suppose it would prove for an interesting effect on the conduct of Montana police and DAs (i.e. it might create for a real or virtual immunity in a state court but not a federal, for example.)

[LittleRedToyota]

4. Apparently nobody can cite a single case of a person being prosecuted in federal court for violation of the GFSZ as a stand-alone charge (although it was possibly done in addition to other charges).

just FYI, there have been at least two people charged with the new GFSZA (not as standalone charges, though) who have appealed it to the circuit court level. two circuit courts upheld the revised GFSZA.

the 8th circuit found the new version constitutional in the 1999 case of US v. Jordan Danks (http://openjurist.org/221/f3d/1037/u...v-jordan-danks).

the 9th circuit also did so in the 2005 case US v. Dorsey(http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...10/0430152.pdf).

[andrewjs18]

I'm still wondering when we're going to be allowed to be FREE again. does any person honestly think this is going to do any good to deter criminals?

[tes151]

I'm still wondering when we're going to be allowed to be FREE again. does any person honestly think this is going to do any good to deter criminals?

Since the states created the federal government, not the other way around, with the exception of a hand full of powers, the states and the people have most of the power. Also, all the states joined the union voluntarily, and can also choose to leave the union at any time. I'm starting to think I just might get to see that happen before I die the way things are going.

[andrewjs18]

Since the states created the federal government, not the other way around, with the exception of a hand full of powers, the states and the people have most of the power. Also, all the states joined the union voluntarily, and can also choose to leave the union at any time. I'm starting to think I just might get to see that happen before I die the way things are going.

hopefully before any of us die, we'll be able to see true freedom again.