another and different Carry question

[Headhunter 13]

I got the below post from another gun forum. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Before people assume you can open carry anywhere... You might want to seek legal advice regarding the Gun Free School Zone Act, which restricts even the transportation of a gun within 1000 feet of the BOARDER of a school or other applicable property. Worse Delaware and some other states have expanded on GFSZ by including places like community centers and so on.

GFSZ makes it a felony class crime to have a gun anywhere inside the prohibited area. Even when you are CCW licensed etc. If the gun isn't unloaded and locked and in the trunk, it's very possible you could be in violation. Only on duty police are exempt far as I can tell. And it seems to override state open or other carry laws.

And this is a property line + restriction. If the school is on 10 acres, the prohibited zone is that 10 acres PLUS 1000 feet in all directions around it. Which very likely crosses many major roads for anyone even close to an urban area. If the school is one building, as some city schools, the 1000 feet is from the outside walls or whatever the property of the school is. In many cities these zones even overlap creating a huge defacto gun ban area.

If your house is inside one of these areas, you can move around only on your property. If you set one foot off your property with a loaded gun you are in violation.

GFSZ is 1000 feet from the property line of the school. It includes public, private, charter, and just about any other school. There is debate that it may even apply to a home school operation. Because of how schools are strewn all over many cities, it creates a virtual mine field for a gun owner to traverse. Especially given the lust of many prosecutors to charge weapons violations at every possible chance so they look tough on crime.

[ChamberedRound]

The Gun Free School Zones Act was declared Unconstitutional and voided in 1995, as a result of the Supreme Court hearing the case of "United States v. Lopez". The SCotUS also backed up that decision in "United v. Morrison" in 2000.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

[KeithPA]

It was in 1995, but it was reenacted in 1996 with 16 or so different words. I tried searching but came up empty with being able to find anyone that has been prosecuted the 1996 legislation.

The Gunzone I believe has an article on the 1996 legislation.

ETA: I never bookmarked the Gunzone page, here is a reaction / faq on the GOA.

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

[LittleRedToyota]

interesting question. the short answer is that, if you have an LTCF, the act does not apply to you, so, yes, it is clearly legal to open carry in a school zone. if you do not have an LTCF, it is up in the air.

the original federal gun-free school zone act was struck down by SCOTUS as exceeding the authority of the federal government under the commerce clause (holy crap, SCOTUS actually does acknowledge that the commerce clause has limits ).

the (republican, btw) congress re-enacted a new version of it in 1996. the new law has language stating that the gun "must affect interstate commerce". of course, no one knows what that means. it is just an attempt to get around the problem with the original law.

the new version includes an exception for permit holders.

"(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;

so, if you have an LTCF, you are exempted from the law. however, if you don't then who knows. we probaby won't really know until someone without a permit gets arrested and prosecuted for it and challenges it in court. i don't think that has happened. congress added wording to the new version to try to relate the possession of a gun to interstate commerce. i don't think it has been determined whether or not that would fly in court.

(also, local authorities rarely prosecute federal crimes.)

the text of the law can be found here:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wb...hool_zones.txt

some more info can be found here:

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

and an interesting take on gun-free school zones can be found here:

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story....2-a381c01822ef

[ChamberedRound]

It was in 1995, but it was reenacted in 1996 with 16 or so different words. I tried searching but came up empty with being able to find anyone that has been prosecuted the 1996 legislation.

The Gunzone I believe has an article on the 1996 legislation.

Yes, I stand corrected. It was re-enacted. This definitely warrants further discussion, because it could limit where a person can legally carry a weapon. There are exceptions noted for those who are licensed by the state to "possess" a weapon, but is possession the same as lawfully carrying a weapon on one's person with an LTC? And what about open carry, which doesn't require an LTC in PA? I have no idea how to interpret this law.

[LittleRedToyota]

There are exceptions noted for those who are licensed by the state to "possess" a weapon, but is possession the same as lawfully carrying a weapon on one's person with an LTC? And what about open carry, which doesn't require an LTC in PA? I have no idea how to interpret this law.

refer to the parts of the law i have bolded above.

it says specifically, "does not apply to the possession of a firearm" if you have an LTCF (since PA does require a background check). it doesn't say "does not apply to conealed carry of a firearm".

therefore, if you have an LTCF, the prohibition against possessing a firearm in a gun free school zone does not apply to you...no matter how the gun is possessed.

open carrying without an LTCF is a different story, though.

[ChamberedRound]

refer to the parts of the law i have bolded above.

it says specifically, "does not apply to the possession of a firearm" if you have an LTCF (since PA does require a background check). it doesn't say "does not apply to conealed carry of a firearm".

therefore, if you have an LTCF, the prohibition against possessing a firearm in a gun free school zone does not apply to you...no matter how the gun is possessed.

open carrying without an LTCF is a different story, though.

LRT,

My brain hurts Thanks for the clarification, I'll have to re-read the law until I understand it. What you describe makes sense to me, as regulation of schools and firearms are state's rights, which can't be trounced on by the govt.

Quite frankly, I still don't understand how the re-wording of the law made it constitutional, given that the average citizen traveling within 1000 feet of a school zone isn't affecting interstate or foreign commerce, armed or not.

[KeithPA]

Gunzone I thought it was had a comparison of before and after (I can't find it though). There were about 17 verbs/adverbs/adjuctives that had changed.

The law didn't really change, it simply added exclusions. So unless I'm reading it wrong, Lopez would still have been convicted under this law.

The original law was immediately used and challenged. This law has been here 11 years and I haven't found anything. Obviously people haven't tried to prosecute under this law because it probably wouldn't hold any ground. This is like immigration law or laws that are still on the book about adultry, its only good if someone prosecutres it. And that seems very unlikely.

[LittleRedToyota]

Quite frankly, I still don't understand how the re-wording of the law made it constitutional,

it probably did not. however, it has not gone before the court to be declared unconsitutional.

i don't think anyone has been prosecuted under it...or, if anyone has, they have not challenged the constitutionality of it.

[pex]

I encourage anyone to prove that their firearm "has not moved in or affects interstate commerce" by the truly insane standards the courts find this phrase to mean. The addition is meaningless.

I worry about the creation of patchwork land that schools own that could be claimed by silly regulations like this to blank out firearms in complete cities.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...1----000-.html
18USC921 defines "school zone":

(25) The term “school zone” means—
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

Does anyone happen to know what 'the grounds' could mean or what a 'school' really is?

The example I fear most is, as an example, a noncontiguous school-owned sports stadium.