1,000 Feet From Schools?

[Kim]

No I understand the Gun-Free School legislation but what I don't understand is that the ACLU in going to court to overturn the 1,000 feet law. I know I did not believe it either till I found out it is the 1,000 feet that a known child molester is to stay away from schools. They say that is just a breach of his Civil Rights. Why in cities he has practically almost no where he can go on roads that are always 1,000 feet from schools. Funny they would pick that but not the 1,000 feet in the Gun-Free Scool Act. But that one affected law abiding citizens with firearms not some felon. I despise the ACLU. I forget which state they are taking the case to.

 

[dch1978]

If you are looking for grounds that they would take on Gun Free Zones,... Forget it.

At best they will not engage in any 2nd amendment squable, at worst they really are working towards a legally binding no guns law.

Read from their website, the ACLU does not believe in personal civil liberties on the 2nd.

The ACLU is not ever going to fight for real, worthwhile "rights" of the populous. The ACLU believes the police/.gov are only authority who can take care of the "people".

Do what you will, but I will not support this organisation.

DCH

 

[Gray Peterson]

What are you talking about?

 

[dfaugh]

I gave up trying to figure these people out a long time ago....They're suppused to support Civil Liberties but if you look at what they do, they really support SOME Civil Liberties SOME of the time, under SOME circumstances. In all a very misleading name for their organization.

 

[mp510]

I believe that she is talking about the ACLU trying to claim that preventing a child molester to be within 1000 feet of a school violates his civil rights.
If I remember right, the Guns Free School Zone law (FEDERAL) was overturned in 1995 by United States v. Lopez. Lopez was decided on constitutional grounds, but it was not because of the second ammendment. Lopez was decided because the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to make state level government enforce a federal law.

 

[xd9fan]

....wonder if I have ever violated THAT law before....hmmm.....

 

[jrou111]

ACLU stands for American Communist Lawyers Union, btw.

One of their founding statements was that "Communism is the goal"

 

[Erebus]

What are you talking about?

What they are refering to is a law that states that Registered Sex Offenders are prohibited within 1000 feet of a school. The ACLU is trying to have this law overturned as a violation of the RSO's civil rights.

I believe that if they are successful it may set a preceident for overturning the 1000' restriction for people that carry a firearm lawfully. At this time it is very difficult to navigate in my town and go where you need to do to all the schools all over the place. Very roundabout routes need be driven to avoid violating these zones around schools.

However there will be absolutely no interest from the ACLU in assisting in overturning the gun restriction. To the ACLU you are a threat to school children if you carry a firearm. You are not a threat to those same school children if you are a convicted and registered sex offender.

 

[Henry Bowman]

All of the "1,000 feet from a school" laws seem stupid to me. It's as illogical and arbitrary as limiting the capacity of magazines.

Is 1,001 feet a "safe" distance? Is 9 rounds less lethal? It also seems that local geography and architecture would make 1,000 feet seem like either miles or no space at all, depending on the circumstances. It's all "feel good' legislation for the sake of appearing to do something about a perceived (maby real, maybe not) problem. :banghead:

 

[Erebus]

As I have said before, they seem to automaticaly assume that someone who is willing to break one law will not break another. So if you keep piling law on top of law you will eventually have one that the criminal will not be willing to break and will refrain from commiting any crime.

Examples of their logic:
It's illegal to rob banks, but people still rob banks. But a person that will rob a bank will refrain from robbing a bank because he's prohibited from bringing his robbery tool(gun) into the bank.

It's illegal to murder people but people still murder school children. BUt a person that will murder school children will refrain from murdering school children because his murder tool(gun) is prohidited from a school zone.

It's illegal to rape or molest children, but people still rape and molest children. But a person that rapes and molests children will refrain from raping and molesting children because sex offenders are prohibited from going near children.

It is illegal to sell drugs to anyone. People who sell drugs to children at school will refrain from selling drugs to children at school because drugs are prohibited from school zones.

It's backwards logic. They think that a criminal who is going to commit a major crime will refrain from commiting that major crime because commiting that major crime would also include commiting a minor crime.

 

[Derby FALs]

I hope they win...

 

[Thefabulousfink]

personally I think it is a good thing. If the ACLU wins their case, then a pro2A lawyer can bring a case saying that "convicted childmolesters can travel withing 1000ft of a school but law abiding citizens with full background checks can't?" I think if the ACLU wins their case we have a much better chance of overturning the "Gun-Free Zone."

 

[Carl N. Brown]

SO the civil liberties of convicted child molesters
trump the civil liberties of innocent children.

SO when did the Left abandon their pet slogan
"For The Children"?

 

[Erebus]

SO when did the Left abandon their pet slogan
"For The Children"?

They will abandon anything that doesn't suit their agenda of free for all no one is held responsible for anything they do. What do you think this new "Intermitent Explosive Disorder" is all about? It's about making another excuse for criminal destructive behavior. "They don't need punishment, they need treatment, they are victims" Whining little maggots!

 

[ready4shtf]

What if your house is within 1,000 feet from a school. Does that mean that the 2nd ammendment dosent apply to you?

 

[Erebus]

What if your house is within 1,000 feet from a school. Does that mean that the 2nd ammendment dosent apply to you?

No you can still keep and bear arms(with the proper permits) you just can't take them home.

 

[ready4shtf]

I'm kind of skeptical of that. Where do they expect you to store them? The police station?

 

[Erebus]

Exactly, for most intents and purposes you cannot own firearms if you live within 1000' of a school.

 

[ready4shtf]

I pulled up google earth and just drew a 1,000' radius circle around the nearest school I could find. There were roughly 85 houses in that circle. Thats horrible. If I was a criminal, I would know where the unarmed people lived.... Thank God there arent any schools nearby me. I'm definately checking that from now on next time I move.

 

[silliman89]

The gun free school zone is a horrible, pointless, infringement of the RKBA. However it's not as bad as people are making it sound here. It prohibits Guns within 1000 feet of a school, unless:

- The gun is on the owner's private property. (There may be an issue if the private property is itself a home school. It looks like the law, as written, prohibits guns in home schools.)

- The gun is being transported unloaded and in a locked container.

- The gun is carried by a CCW holder in a state that requires a background check for CCW.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I didn't write the law. These are my own words and may be inaccurate. I got my info here.

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

 

[Erebus]

When I took the handgun safety coarse someone directly questioned the instructors, who were local LEOs, about it and they basically said that it's an unenforced law as far as houses close to the school go. They couldn't tell us to disregard it but for the most part it isn't enforced. Now I have no idea what would happen if you applied for a permit and reported your address as one of those houses. Would they know it's less than 1000' from a school?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is a stupid law; but as Silliman pointed out it doesn't stop you from driving through a school zone with firearms (as long as you have CCW or they are stored) or storing firearms in your house (even though you live within 1000' of a school).

While I doubt the ACLU would have taken the case if it did do that, the issue with the child molester is a different one (though it appears the ACLU is borrowing heavily from the pro-gun arguments used to invalidate the first Gun Free School Zones Act) because he is prohibited from travelling through school zones or living within 1000' of a school.

When I took the handgun safety coarse someone directly questioned the instructors, who were local LEOs, about it and they basically said that it's an unenforced law as far as houses close to the school go.

They are wrong as far as understanding federal law. I can't speak to your state law. However, like most gun laws I imagine it is enforced pretty poorly.

They couldn't tell us to disregard it but for the most part it isn't enforced. Now I have no idea what would happen if you applied for a permit and reported your address as one of those houses. Would they know it's less than 1000' from a school?

Nothing would happen under Federal law; because it isn't illegal under Federal law. State law? Depends on your state...

 

[MechAg94]

Okay, child molesters and pedophiles can go within 1000 feet of a school. However, they have to wear a 2'X2' sign (completely uncovered) front and back that says "I am a scumbag who wants to have sex with children." A similar bumper sticker and special window tag on their automobile would also be required.

I think that is a fair tradeoff.


If we don't do that, let's just stop letting them out of jail.

 

[One of Many]

It's backwards logic. They think that a criminal who is going to commit a major crime will refrain from commiting that major crime because commiting that major crime would also include commiting a minor crime.

The real reason we have creeping incrementalism of the ever more restrictive laws, is that the legislators believe that a person will be arrested for a minor offense, like violating the 1000 foot rule, before they can get close enough to actually violate some childs body.

The same concept applies to laws against disturbing the peace, or brandishing a firearm (when it is still confined to your holster, but becomes momentarily visible to some hysterical gun hater). They think that if you can be arrested for just having a visible gun on your person, that will prevent you from actually shooting someone.

It has nothing to do with the willingness of people to comply with the law, and everything to do with making it more difficult to actually comply with the law. When normal activities become illegal, the power of the legislative, law enforcement and judicial elite is expanded, and the private citizen becomes more of a slave and less of a master with respect to the government.

It is all about control; it is not about safety - safety is just a disguise for a power grab. Society would be better off if 90% of the laws were abolished, and the remaining 10% were enforced.

 

[Byron Quick]

Sillman and Bartholomew Roberts are right. I live within 1000' of a school. I have lived within 1000' of a school every day this law has existed. I have CCW. Small town. The cops know I live withing 1000'. The cops know I have firearms within 1000'. They know that when they see me driving directly past the school that I am armed and probably have an EBR in the vehicle. They wave. I wave back.