DC Carry ruling... finally

[swinokur]

I know a guy who carried on the mall at the Washington Monument-no issues. When this is decided,and if carry is allowed, the same rule will apply to NPS property in DC, ie the Mall, outside monuments etc. The exceptions will be where NPS employees are working.Carry in a monument or memorial wiill be banned if NPS employees are working in them., based on the statute.

IANAL

 

[Sam1911]

And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute.

Actually, I do believe ANY law enforcement officer can arrest for federal crimes. So I wouldn't count on DC not being able to do so.

 

[swinokur]

Could be.. I don't ever plan to be in a situation where I find out.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute. They could call US Marshals to arrest however. I don't see this happening. It is sometimes added on to other charges from what I've read.

Say WHAAAT?

If that were true, then this law would be TOTALLY unenforcable at all levels across the United States. No city, county, or state law enforcement agency would be able to enforce this.

Does this pass the common sense check? I think not.

Regardless...you are correct in not planning on being in a situation to find that out.

 

[jbrown50]

MD law was settled in the 4 CA, not the DC Circuit. The apparent constitutionality of may issue applies to the 4CA ruling, of which DC is a not a part. DC is in the DC circuit. 4 CA rulings don't apply.

Judge Scullin applied 14A equal protection rules in the DC ruling, meaning DC cannot prohibit non DC residents from some kind of carry. His narrow ruling would prohibit a MD style may issue G&S scheme IMO.

And DC cannot enforce the GFSZA. it's a Federal statute. They could call US Marshals to arrest however. I don't see this happening. It is sometimes added on to other charges from what I've read.

IANAL but live 3 miles from DC.

From the ruling:



This seems to rule out a MD style requirement for Good and Substantial reason to carry.The right to self defense is all that's needed. That sounds like shall issue to me.

Yes.

The injunction states that while applying to register a firearm, when the plaintiffs entered "I intend to carry this firearm, loaded, in public, for self defense, when not kept in my home", their application to register was denied.

If DC's crafted carry law does not allow carry for self defense as a valid reason Judge Scullin will undoubtedly reject it.

He also cites Peruta vs. San Diego.

 

[swinokur]

Whether a local LEO can enforce a Federal regulation is from my reading, is also dependent on local laws as well. Not a blanket statement so I stand partially corrected.

 

[fletcher]

Regarding the GFSZA thing, I thought it didn't cause an issue most of the time because of the following:

(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation's schools by enactment of this subsection.

(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.

Am I reading the wrong section of the law, or does this not leave it up to the states to determine whether or not firearms are permitted (and under what circumstances) within the 1000 foot radius? Granted in DC this could lead to some sketchiness. Has anyone made the case that a CHL meets the aforementioned requirement? Alternately, if no license is required for such possession in the jurisdiction (e.g. constitutional carry), would this also meet the requirement?

EDIT:

Under definitions for this section:

(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

 

[Sam1911]

GFSZA is not an issue for licensed carriers within the state that issued them that license IF the licensing process for that state meets the requirements listed.

So, if you are traveling in another state you are NOT exempt from GFSZA in that state unless you have a carry permit ISSUED BY that state. (Not just reciprocated/recognized by that state.)

So, if I'm in WV, I am not exempt from GFSCA even though I can carry in WV on my PA license.

Or, if you're a resident of a "Constitutional Carry" state like VT or AZ, you are NOT legal to carry to or within 1,000 feet of any school there, even though you don't need a permit to carry open or concealed anywhere (else) in the state. The fact that the state doesn't require permits doesn't exempt you from the federal law.

Likewise, unless you're a resident of DC, you will NOT be exempt from GFSZA while visiting the District, even if the Chief of police has issued an interpretation for her officers that says you are allowed to carry within the District on your home state's permit.

Note, she specified that all other firearms possession laws remain in effect. GFSCA is under that blanket of "all other" firearms possession laws.

 

[Midwest]

I'm sure this has been asked before. All these scenarios within 1000 feet of a school but not on school grounds.

Is there any cases of anyone being busted under the GFSZ but not on the actual school ground?

Anyone busted under the GFSZ from out of state with a carry permit?

I assume retired LEOs carrying under LEOSA are NOT exempt?

I'm sure all law enforcement (on duty) from another state (or Fed Leos) ARE exempt?

.

 

[wildbilll]

In the above quoted GFSZA text, remember that it requires that you knowingly violate. Signs would be needed to make you aware you are in many of these zones.

 

[Field Tester]

It is easy to fall into the 1000 foot zone as illustrated by this site.

"1,000 Feet is Further Than You Think"

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/zones/thousand_feet.html

"We set out to discover whether people can be seen 1,000 feet from a school under ideal circumstances. One author then stood on the school’s property line and took pictures of another author at various distances from the property. Each image at left is a closeup of the actual photograph at right. "





.

I actually live within 1,000 ft of 4 schools. How does this work for residents leaving from and going to their residence?

 

[Sam1911]

In the above quoted GFSZA text, remember that it requires that you knowingly violate. Signs would be needed to make you aware you are in many of these zones.

Note that it actually says "knowingly possess" not "knowingly be within 1,000 feet."

You'd probably have to prove you didn't know you had the gun.

 

[aeriedad]

Note that it actually says "knowingly possess" not "knowingly be within 1,000 feet."

You'd probably have to prove you didn't know you had the gun.

I read it differently.

"(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."

 

[Kaeto]

I've forgotten where I read it, but wasn't there a ruling that the states bordering on Mexico couldn't enforce Federal Immigration law with local or state police?

I think that ruling would apply to all federal laws. Federal police have to enforce Federal law.

 

[Sam1911]

I read it differently.

Good point. (I'm a bit sleepy this morning.)

Hopefully it can be established that you didn't have reason to know you were in a school zone. Contestable, but something...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

"(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."

The deal here is Congress' ability to regulate matters in which interstate commerce is involved.

Name a firearm you own which has NOT traveled across state lines at some point in its history. I'm thinking you'd have a hard time doing that. For example, let's say you bought a Colt 1991A1 brand new back in 1991 in South Carolina (like me). The pistol was manufactured in Connecticut.

I own a Beretta, which are either made in Italy or Maryland.

My Remington, which made my 870, in in North Carolina.

Marlin is either Connecticut or North Carolina, depending on when the guns I own were made.

See where this is going?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I've forgotten where I read it, but wasn't there a ruling that the states bordering on Mexico couldn't enforce Federal Immigration law with local or state police?

I think that ruling would apply to all federal laws. Federal police have to enforce Federal law.

OK, I did some further research on the matter of state/local LEO enforcing federal laws. Some of my own beliefs were erroneous. I will defer to any LEO/attorney who has more knowledge on the matter, though.

In general, state and local LEO do not have the authority to enforce federal laws. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that they cannot arrest a person for violating a federal law. Lots of things to consider here.

- One is whether or not there is an analogous local or state law. If so, then local or state LEO will most certainly be empowered to enforce that law.

- A federal agency may ask a local/state agency to conduct an arrest. In such an instance, the local/state agency will then be empowered to do so.

- A local/state agency may choose to make an arrest for a federal violation. However, the matter would have to be turned over to the appropriate federal agency, which has the option of saying "yea" or "nay" to it. A scenario might mean a local LEO would arrest someone for a federal violation, but not be able to jail the individual unless the federal agency chooses to take the case. If the federal agency won't take the case, the individual can't be held...or the local LEO has to come up with a local/state citation he is empowered to enforce.

- Some local/state officers may be specifically empowered by the federal government to handle certain matters. Immigration would be an example where this happens.


NOW, here's where the rubber meets the road with respect to applicability to THR:

The GFSZA itself is a federal statute. However, if the state you reside in has also codified it, or portions of it, then the state has LEO's who are empowered to enforce those laws on the state level.

For example, SC code 23.31-215.M(8) says

"A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;"


If you violate the STATE statutes listed, including this one, state LEO's ARE empowered to enforce this and there is a STATE penalty:

"A person who wilfully violates a provision of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years."


So the state of SC, in my example, can effectively arrest you for violating the GFSZA because they made it a STATE CRIME to carry a gun anywhere the federal laws say you're not allowed.


If you were to be charged with the federal offense of violating the GFSZA, then the federal government would get involved in this and penalty would be:

"Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law."

A conviction under these terms would constitute a felony conviction and you'd lose your RKBA for the rest of your life.


Big difference.


My thanks to the people who posted on the matter of local/state agencies enforcing federal laws. I learned a lot researching this.

 

[wildbilll]

In the above post re: SC GFSZ's that does look bad for a permit holder.
But it is still a State law violation, not the Federal law, as far as a SC permit holder is concerned.
I'd take the State rap over the Federal one any day.

If caught, I would argue that it says "into" a "place",
and if I were caught while outdoors in the street or sidewalk or shoulder of a road I would claim that I might have carried the gun "onto" those areas but it certainly wasn't "into".
If it were a fenced area, that might also be considered "into", but if I am on the open street or sidewalk I am not "in" any place.

 

[swinokur]

I did a little research too, although not as extensive. A local LEO can ARREST you for a Federal violation but it is up to the Federal prosecutor to decide whether to prosecute you. So DC police could ARREST you and then let the Feds decide whether to prosecute you. You could also be charged with both. You could be prosecuted twice, once for any local law violation and the the Federal violation, or vice versa, depending on when the prosecutors decide. I think that is handled on a case by case basis.

Obviously something was learned something in this thread. I know I did.

IANAL

 

[Field Tester]

Someone want to help me out with post #161 please?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Someone want to help me out with post #161 please?

Sure. This should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990#Exceptions

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):

[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(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.

 

[Field Tester]

Thanks Chief.
I still don't quite fully understand, please bear with me.
I understand possession, but specifically how does it relate to CCW?
By what's posted, if I obtain a CCW and I leave my home I cannot load the firearm until I am 1000 ft away from the schools? Common sense tells me I'm getting this wrong, so I want to understand and be clear.

It's subsection 3 points 1 & 2 that are confusing me.

I get that I can own, load and carry in my home without a CCW, that's a no brainer. But let's say I get my CCW. Because of my proximity to the schools, how would my carry routine go? I wake up, grab my daily carry and holster it and walk out the front door to my car to go to work. Am I now in violation of the law or am I exempt because I live within the 1,000 ft and I have no other way to CCW unless I load later? (which seems like it opens a whole new bag of worms, hence me not understanding)

Sorry if this is incredibly obvious to everyone else. I obviously haven't taken a CCW course and I'm sure I'd have all my questions answered there, this is just something I've never heard discussed before and I'm curious.

Thanks again Chief!

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Thanks Chief.
I still don't quite fully understand, please bear with me.
I understand possession, but specifically how does it relate to CCW?
By what's posted, if I obtain a CCW and I leave my home I cannot load the firearm until I am 1000 ft away from the schools? Common sense tells me I'm getting this wrong, so I want to understand and be clear.

It's subsection 3 points 1 & 2 that are confusing me.

I get that I can own, load and carry in my home without a CCW, that's a no brainer. But let's say I get my CCW. Because of my proximity to the schools, how would my carry routine go? I wake up, grab my daily carry and holster it and walk out the front door to my car to go to work. Am I now in violation of the law or am I exempt because I live within the 1,000 ft and I have no other way to CCW unless I load later? (which seems like it opens a whole new bag of worms, hence me not understanding)

Sorry if this is incredibly obvious to everyone else. I obviously haven't taken a CCW course and I'm sure I'd have all my questions answered there, this is just something I've never heard discussed before and I'm curious.

Thanks again Chief!

Actually, the answer isn't "incredibly obvious", so no worries there.

Federal law leaves some of this up to the state. Take the part that says:

"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"

You need to read your state laws. I can tell you what South Carlina has to say, in part, with respect to this:

- "It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property. The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle."

- Carry on roads adjacent to public schools are subject to this: ""For purposes of this section, the terms "premises" and "property" do not include state or locally owned or maintained roads, streets, or rights-of-way of them, running through or adjacent to premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, which are open full time to public vehicular traffic."


So, if I lived within 1,000 feet of any school property, the law doesn't say I cannot own or carry on my own property, nor that I cannot carry on my person or in my vehicle so long as I'm on state or locally owned roads or roads which may run adjacent or through public or private school properties which are open full time to public vehicular traffic.

What California says, however, may be a world apart from South Carolina.

 

[wilbur2]

I'd take the State rap over the Federal one any day.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Trial on one doesn't preclude trial on the other. Double jeopardy doesn't apply to a federal prosecution following a state prosecution on the same offense. You could get convicted of both...

 

[DC2]

DC will appeal and will also have ready to pass in emergency session on deadline very stringent legislation that excludes reciprocity and mandates proven threats.

My prediction is the end result will be Bloomberg's private security will get to carry and zero John q Public will.