Get rid of the no gun zones around schools

[gopguy]

Seems I stirred a hornets nest.....

 

[SRYnidan]

I think a bunch of us here are missing a big point.
This does not just apply to those who carry concealed illegally.
It applies to anyone who legally carry openly on their person or in there car as is legal in many areas (AZ, NV, MT) to point out just a few.

 

[hso]

SRYnidan touched on a point that came to my mind.
What about those states that allow you to carry a loaded gun in your car without a license? Since you can't know where the various 1,000 ft. boundaries are how do you comply with the law and is it a law that a reasonable person can't comply with? And please, no rants, this is a serious question about how to comply with a law that looks like a law abiding citizen can't comply with in this respect.

 

[Optical Serenity]

Here in GA you are ok with a permit. No big deal. It even talks about picking up people in school.

Take all your paranoia and petition to change your state laws or get a CCW/FL law passed. Sheesh.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What is the law in Florida regarding CCW license holders and schools?

 

[gc70]

(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.

That seems to take care of the objection about not knowing the exact extent of the school zone.

 

[sm]

The Real Hawkeye Post #6
wdlsguy Post # 19
hso post # 29

Great Posts! Jurisdictions and interpretations do vary accross the country, my concerns were addressed in above posts.

Gun Free Zones simply are ignored by criminals and leave law abiding folks disarmed.

Folks attending schoos, be they Staff , Students, parents - anyone- do have to commute to and fro a school.

College Students are NOT the only ones that have to commute to and from a Campus,nor are they the only ones that do conduct daily affairs before or after School hours.

Can vary from a licensed security guard needing to have his weapon in vechicle as he just got off work or will need to go to work after class. Is this person supposed to make a special trip back home? I know of one person that had to make arrangements with another trusted student to leave a gun for work at their apt as the guard lives 30+ minutes from campus.

Anyone can have a situation commuting to and from, and not just car trouble, what about the stalkers and perverts that wait for night classes to let out at Colleges and follow folks?

I feel data needs to be collected in regard to folks that are not allowed to CCW or have a gun in vehicle on or around Campuses - along with - other NO Firearm Zones.

I am speaking of folks that have been stalked, had car trouble, parking lots getting groceries after class, anything - and I hate to say it - any tragic results. Documented with Cites.

The "feel good" politicians and "feel good" folks could use some Reality IMO.

If something were to occur to an "offical's" wife, daughter and being "restricted" caused them tragedy it may hit home better than that of a "serf".

Just something that hits close to home with me - these NO Gun Zones.

Steve

 

[Spiphel Rike]

If the first one was struck down after being challenged why is this one different? is the law on different terms or did the judges screw the pooch?

That said, this law should be removed from the books and as quick as possible.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

If the first one was struck down after being challenged why is this one different? is the law on different terms or did the judges screw the pooch?

That said, this law should be removed from the books and as quick as possible.

I believe the first time they tried it they did not couch it in interstate commerce regulatory terms. It was just a raw power grab, with no pretense of legitimate authority. The second time, they got smarter, and couched the whole thing in interstate commerce regulatory terminology. The court then allowed that if it was couched in interstate commerce regulatory terminology, it was authorized under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to permit Federal regulation of anything, anyone and any activity, regardless of whether or not the object, person or activity has any real connection at all to interstate commerce, because, you see, even when something has never been in the stream of interstate commerce, and never will be, that fact alone effects interstate commerce, because by it not entering into it, there will be that much less interstate commerce activity in that type of product.

For example, if I buy a handgun in the State of its manufacture, that means I am not buying one from another State, so one handgun will not be involved in interstate commerce that would otherwise have been. Therefore, I have, by not buying an out of State manufactured handgun, negatively effected interstate commerce by reducing over all interstate commerce activity in handguns, even if only by one.

This, of course, begs the question whether the Framers intended the Interstate Commerce Clause to even give authority to the Federal Government to control by fiat what objects and products are allowed to enter into interstate commerce. That authority is not enumerated in my reading of that clause. To make regular (i.e., to "regulate") is not the same as to pick and choose which items and products people are allowed to buy and sell across State lines. Delegating that level of power over the lives of individuals to the Federal Government would have been anathema to the Founders, so it seems completely unlikely that this was their intent, as such determinations are strictly exercises in police powers, which belong exclusively to the States.

 

[hugh damright]

If the first one was struck down after being challenged why is this one different? is the law on different terms or did the judges screw the pooch?

When the SCOTUS struck down the school zone, Clinton asked Reno how to get around the SCOTUS ruling (i.e. how to circumvent the Constitution), and she said to rewrite the law so that it applies only to guns that have some connection with interstate commerce.

Oh ... and to really show us how little they think of the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings, when they rewrote the law, they also changed it to increase the size of the gun free school zones and make them a hundred times larger.

 

[YellowLab]

In Frackville, PA there is a gun shop withing the 1000 ft zone.

You cannot get to the shop WITHOUT going through the zone... the school is also on a MAJOR intrastate highway, Rt 61.

There are MANY, MANY hunters with guns (who do not keep them unloaded, or locked up... why should they? Will a criminal wait as they open the safe and load the mag/clip?).

I would rather see mom walking little johnny to school with a .22/.38 in her purse than criminilize her for protecting her kid.

Oh yeah, and there are 2 state prisons and 1 federal prison within 5 miles of Frackville.

 

[Master Blaster]

18 USC 922(q)(1) Federal Gun-Free School Zones

(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.

Reading is your friend


I can't remember the last time they prosecuted a criminal under this federal law in federal court, can you?????

This law is really an add on to other criminal charges, like selling crack and carrying a loaded gun on school property, or a gang banger shooting somone on school property.

But the FEDS dont prosecute anyone for this around here. The state law is written specifically as an add on here in DE, and states that participation in any legitimate recreational or other legal use (CCW is a legal use with a permit so is target shooting or a course of instruction) shall be an affirmative defense. But the DE law is only used, and can only be used in the case of another crime being committed (an add on).

 

[publius]

The second time, they got smarter, and couched the whole thing in interstate commerce regulatory terminology. The court then allowed that if it was couched in interstate commerce regulatory terminology, it was authorized under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, which has been interpreted by the SCOTUS to permit Federal regulation of anything

Not quite. They did indeed use the Lopez decision as a drafting guide to rewrite the law with new commerce clause language (and a 1,000 foot perimeter, where the old law had 100 feet), but that law has not (yet) been challenged in the SCOTUS.

The fact that the Lopez decision was used as a drafting guide for the new law, and the fact that the new law remained unchallenged for 9 years, made it ring rather hollow with me when Justice Scalia said in his concurring opinion in the Raich case that the court was not ratifying the use of Lopez as a drafting guide. I think O'Connor was right about that one.

 

[pdowg881]

I'm still in Hs and obviosly, its a "Gun Free Zone" but that obviously means nothing becuase a few people have brought in a gun before. It also makes me mad how the school sends in a police oficer for a couple weeks after. Then they survey all the students asking if they feel safe now. What the heck is a police officer gonna do when someone comes in shooting? It's the most useless thing ever, but I guess some of the people think they are extremely safe if a police officer stands in the corner of the hallway for a week after the incident. And I'm sure if someone did have any plans they wouls wait till the officer went back on regular duty. Its very easy to avoid the one police officer i my school if you want to go in there armed and do something. Stupid law, stupid kids, stupid place, im out of there in 10 days.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'm still in Hs and obviosly, its a "Gun Free Zone" but that obviously means nothing becuase a few people have brought in a gun before. It also makes me mad how the school sends in a police oficer for a couple weeks after. Then they survey all the students asking if they feel safe now. What the heck is a police officer gonna do when someone comes in shooting? It's the most useless thing ever, but I guess some of the people think they are extremely safe if a police officer stands in the corner of the hallway for a week after the incident. And I'm sure if someone did have any plans they wouls wait till the officer went back on regular duty. Its very easy to avoid the one police officer i my school if you want to go in there armed and do something. Stupid law, stupid kids, stupid place, im out of there in 10 days.

In Florida, every school in the State has an actual Sheriff's Department Office inside the school building, and there is always at least one Deputy in the school at any given time while open. They are referred to as Resource Officers. At the school I work, she's a tiny women whose guns look bigger than she is, and she carries two in service holsters. One's a stun gun and the other's a 9mm.

If history is a guide, however, what a policeman at a school does when someone opens fire is depart the school as quickly as they can ("feet, don't fail me now"), and call for SWAT. In fact, I believe that's what they are trained to do, which is little comfort to the unarmed and (by law) defenseless people in the halls and classrooms being picked off in the mean time. The shooters will probably have run out of ammo, and have killed themselves, before SWAT arrives anyway. Much better solution is to encourage qualified teachers and administrators at the school to acquire CCW licenses, and to carry their weapons concealed while at school at all times. The schools might also provide some incentive for those teachers and administrators to take regular training in the use of their weapons.

When problems with shooters at schools happened in (I believe) South Africa, the government actually provided teachers with assault rifles to keep locked in their school room closets in case of emergency, along with training on their use and ,from what I hear, that has essentially eliminated the problem of school shootings there, which were quite common before the measure.

Experts inform us that even mass murderers make a calculation before they act. They are willing to surrender their lives if they can be relatively assured of an opportunity to kill a lot of people in a short period of time, with little or no resistance. If they feel that as soon as they start shooting, there will be several others with guns shooting back at them, they will choose some other way to vent their rage at the world. They are not looking for a gun fight, but a chance to kill helpless masses of people before committing suicide. Take that chance away from them, and you take away their entire motivation. Which is why so called gun free zones are like magnets for these people.

Here are a couple of articles about other countries that have encouraged their school teachers to be armed.

http://daveshearon.typepad.com/daveshearon/2004/09/armed_teachers.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409022215.asp

 

[YellowLab]

2(B)(ii) still does not cover you.

Open carry states do not require a background check, do they?

It really does seem that the lynch pin is if the gun is loaded. But other than being a REALLY expensive club what good is an unloaded gun? Scare factor?

 

[Firethorn]

Yellowlab, a few of us have pointed out that our CCW covers us, using the 2(B)(ii) clause. While I'm still forbidden to carry my weapon onto school grounds, at least the federal law doesn't apply. I figure that clause was intended to apply to private security guards, but was written a little broad. Oh well.

Still, there's the concern for states like Vermont that don't issue permits. Still, in a state like that I imagine that that particular law is generally ignored...