Paging El Tejon (and other attorneys)

[Monkeyleg]

TrapperReady, I've been bugging Zien and Gunderson for the last couple of years about making sure the bill has a severability clause. Turns out it's not necessary, since the supreme court ruled years ago that individual provisions of a bill can be declared unconstitutional without the entire bill being so.

Lone_Gunman, I know where you're coming from. But right now there isn't a single place, except for home or business, where a WI citizen can legally carry. (Interestingly, though, I found out today that federal prosecutors can get permits to carry).

We're either gambling with the supreme court or gambling with the fall elections.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Well just be careful, Monkeyleg, as I believe that law is set up to create felons who will lose their firearms ownership priveledge permanently.

 

[antsi]

Wasn't the federal school zone law ruled unconstitutional a few years ago?

That was found unconstitutional on technical grounds. Basically they ruled that the fed's justification for interfering in state/local affairs didn't hold water.

They did not rule that any such similar law is unconstitutional, and in particular, they didn't rule out states from enacting such laws.

 

[Monkeyleg]

I know, Lone_Gunman. I feel like we're walking barefoot on broken glass here.

The legal beagles seem to feel that the first arrest for violating the school property provision will be the first and last arrest.

To be perfectly honest, I think my view is skewed by selfish reasons: I'm tired of this fight, and I don't expect to be arrested. I just want the beginning of the fight to end.

I was talking this evening with one of the NRA folks, and he said that it looks like Nebraska should be able to pass their bill by February or so, and that it will be a cleaner bill than Wisconsin's.

Of course, their governor is demanding that the bill hit his desk for his signature. Again, if Jim Doyle was not our governor, we'd have one of the best bills in the country, and it would pass easily.

 

[Henry Bowman]

That was found unconstitutional on technical grounds. Basically they ruled that the fed's justification for interfering in state/local affairs didn't hold water.

They did not rule that any such similar law is unconstitutional, and in particular, they didn't rule out states from enacting such laws.

And then Congress went and repassed the law with some selfserving language about how great an effect on interstate commerce it has. The new law has not been used or challenged. But, given the Supreme Court's more recent rulings on what is/is not interstate commerce, I fear that the "gun free school zone" case was an aberation.

 

[Master Blaster]

You could suggest language that makes it an add on offense, meaning that you could not arrest someone for violating the school zone unless they were already arrested for some other crime in the school zone, like selling drugs, armed robbery or assault.

This would target criminals rather than lawabiding citizens.

Then to clarify insert language saying that it will be an absolute affirmative defense, if the citizen was engaged in a course of instruction, a competition, on his way to or from the range, or carrying concealed with a permit, or for any other legitimate self defense or recreational purpose.

This is how the law in Delaware works

 

[Trip20]

At first (and mostly due to the sheer absurdity), I was up in arms over this school zone/bus provision...etc.

The more I consider the potential... the less apprehensive I become. I have a hard time believing there will be arrests, let alone prosecution & and successful conviction over this amendment. Will it be a pain in some respects? Yeah, because each morning I drop my 6yr old off at school.

For me to have any legal trouble due to this provision, so many variables would have to be in place (namely my own absentmindedness or laziness), that it's not worth scrapping the entire piece of legislation. When I consider the likelihood that if this legislation fails, it will be a long, long time before we can again begin this grueling process, I am even more apt to accept the bill as is…. for the time being.

 

[Smurfslayer]

don't rely on the courts!

Remember, the acts of your assembly are 'presumed' constitutional by the courts. The first arrest and conviction - will not - be the last.

It looks to me that a bus, although privately contracted, would be a "school" bus or property for the purposes of your bill. It will hinge on your state's court rulings on owned vs. leased and statutory interpretation by the courts. Generally speaking, courts are loathe to overturn an act of the legislative branch. They are even more loathe to overturn a bearing arms infringement. Especially one dealing with something which is "touchy, feely, politically correct" like schools.

It depends on the momentum this has, but name one state that has omitted a schools infringement of the right to bear arms in recent memory?
...

...

Well?

ok, VA did loosen it to "vehicle carry" while in a parking lot, but it's so limited in scope as to be of little or no practical worth. You should work to the goal of having the permit being an exception to prosecution for any of the general carrying 'off limits' places. You could consider the verbiage "with malicious intent" in the prohibition, which would require the state to prove that element of the "offense".

Otherwise, I fear you will be stuck with off limits schools for our lifetimes....

 

[CAS700850]

Ohio has a sentence enhancement for drug trafficking which heightens the sentence for someone who sells "in the vicinity of a school." PLease avoid making this a War on drugs hikjack.

Anyways, the term "vicinity of a school" is defined as being within 1000 feet of real property owned by a school board and used for school purposes. Thus, the vacant lot the school owns is not a "school" for this enhancement, nor is the vacant school building up for sale.

Now, the concern with the proposal of which you spek is how the distances are measured. In Ohio, you measure from the nearest point on the property line to the location of the drug transaction. Apply that to the proposal, and you have every house within 100 feet of the property line inside this "safe zone" barf: ). So, if your home is within 100" of school property, I guess you lose your rights to own a gun. Maybe they'll add an exception fo rthe homes, but you then can't carry it to the car, can you.

Ohio's law prohibits conveying a deadly weapon onto school grounds, with no exceptions for permit holders. While not great, it sounds better than what you're looking at, as it requires actual possession on school property, and does not criminalize you for walking/driving/living in the area.

 

[Car Knocker]

name one state that has omitted a schools infringement of the right to bear arms in recent memory?

Utah.

The legislature a few years ago affirmed the right of citizens with permits, including school employees, to carry on school property, even when in session. Currently, the AG has filed suit against the University of Utah, at the behest of the Legislature, over its policy prohibiting employees and students from carrying on campus.