Weird perhaps, but not at all unusual. People break that law every day in towns all across the country with the full knowledge of law enforcement. I think there's probably a large majority of LE that doesn't know that it's illegal and a significant portion of those wouldn't care if they did know.
So you think that Permitless Carry is legal in your state?
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
F-111 John
Member
The first exception listed in the law is:
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
the duty of enforcement does not reside with local law enforcement organizations.
Correct. It resides with the feds, who, as I pointed out, consistently overlook the law in question. I'm sure they're well aware of all the gun shows that are held inside schools and within school zones.
dogtown tom
Member
Read the exceptions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
Tom, As far as you're aware, am I correct in my assessment of the illegality of gun shows inside of schools and at fairgrounds within school zones?
No, not in general. If it is private property, there is an exception in the law--as noted more than once in this thread.
I'm not sure exactly how they manage the gun shows that are held on school property, but there's an exception for contracts made with the school itself--perhaps there's a way to manage it using that exception.
I'm not sure exactly how they manage the gun shows that are held on school property, but there's an exception for contracts made with the school itself--perhaps there's a way to manage it using that exception.
Are you replying my question to Tom? I'm talking about public schools and county owned fairgrounds.
I work in a facility that is on property owned by the city, however, it is leased by the corporation that I work for. For legal and practical purposes it is private property even though it is officially owned by a municipality.
I'm not sure exactly how they manage the gun shows that are held on school property, but there's an exception for contracts made with the school itself--perhaps there's a way to manage it using that exception.
And, I suppose, it's always possible that someone screwed up and did something that was against the law but got away with it. That happens.
I'm not sure exactly how they manage the gun shows that are held on school property, but there's an exception for contracts made with the school itself--perhaps there's a way to manage it using that exception.
And, I suppose, it's always possible that someone screwed up and did something that was against the law but got away with it. That happens.
Excellent point about DA's having different ideas in different districts. The difference can be extreme. Carrying a gun isn't a big deal until it is, and when it is, it's usually a huge deal with potential life altering consequences. That's why if I'm in any doubt I don't carry. I'll take my chances on situational awareness and avoidance.
dogtown tom
Member
So, my guess is the gun show is renting the school or school property. That would seem to meet the exceptions above.
iv and v would seem to apply in the case of a show contracting the space with the school outside of class hours.
Yeah, I could see that being the case. What about the (county owned) fairgrounds within a school zone?
dogtown tom
Member
I don't see an exemption for that.
It may depend upon the interpretation of "private property" in the case of county owned fairgrounds. Our lawyers will have to render an opinion since fairgrounds are typically controlled access and may or may not meet the definition of "private property" even if owned by the local government.
If your goal is to prove that the law doesn't say that it's illegal to possess a firearm (with certain exceptions) inside of a school zone, then you are doomed to failure. The law is clear and other than the listed exceptions, all of which have been discussed, does clearly prohibit possession.
On the other hand, if you are truly interested in the minutia of how county fairs are operated and how that might relate to this law, I've already provided a hint on what to look at with my earlier comment about how an organization can rent/lease public property and essentially transform it into private property. I've done just a very minimal study of the topic myself and found that at least some county fairs are actually operated by non-profit organizations that lease the property from the county to hold the fair. That would effectively make the property private even though it is owned by the county.
If you really want to get an authoritative answer to your question, here is the first step. You contact the specific county that owns the property you are curious about and ask them how the fair is run.
Does the county itself run the fair or does a corporation/organization lease the land and run the fair?
If a corporation/organization leases the land and runs the fair, you find out what organization does it and if they are a governmental organization or not.
If the county actually runs the fair themselves, you find out if they have leases with the individual operators who run specific rides, food booths and exhibits or do they operate all the rides and exhibits themselves?
Until you get that information, it's really not possible to do anything other than speculate.
Once you have that information, you can provide it here and see if someone with a legal background is willing to take the information and dig into the law to see how it applies to the specific situation. Or you could take it to a lawyer who specializes in such things and pay for an opinion.
My "goal", if there is one other than to have an interesting conversation, is to point out the fact that this particular law is habitually ignored by many citizens and by law enforcement at all levels. I agree that the law is clear.
Whether it's ignored or whether people just don't know about or whether it's actively enforced or not it isn't really relevant to the point of the thread. Under the proper circumstances, it could become an issue and therefore it makes sense to be informed. As the opening post says, it's something to keep in mind. There's no attempt made to convince anyone that there's a high probability of being caught and prosecuted under the law.
The point is that if a person knows about the law they can take any one of a number of very simple steps to ensure that it never becomes a problem for them. If they don't know about the law, it could (although it's not likely to) turn out to be problematic for them. Maybe even get them in serious legal trouble.
Of course, a person could decide that even though they know about the law they are going to ignore it. In this case, it seems that the odds are pretty good that a decision like that will never bite them.
The point is that if a person knows about the law they can take any one of a number of very simple steps to ensure that it never becomes a problem for them. If they don't know about the law, it could (although it's not likely to) turn out to be problematic for them. Maybe even get them in serious legal trouble.
Of course, a person could decide that even though they know about the law they are going to ignore it. In this case, it seems that the odds are pretty good that a decision like that will never bite them.
Nasty Canasta
Member
I have always had a combination fishing/small game license & as a young man considered it my carry permit. Never had any issues prior to obtaining the proper permit but figured if anyone asked “I was just hunting wabbits”
The 1000' rule is still on the books, but I don't know how it is currently interpreted. There have to be exceptions. Most, if not all places consider your vehicle as an extension of your home and private property. We have 6 high schools here with probably 20 middle and elementary schools. Most of them on major roads. You couldn't legally go anywhere in this county with a gun in your vehicle if strictly enforced. Yet, I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for this.
I retired as a teacher 13 years ago. We were advised by administrators that a parent dropping a kid off at school was OK to have a gun inside the vehicle as long as they didn't park and come inside the building. Not sure how they interpret that now but suspect the policy hasn't changed.
As far as staff having a gun in the car while at work there was never a clear answer. In fact never a direct question. We took a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. None of the principals I worked for would have cared, but none would have been willing to say it was OK either. What I was able to decipher indicated that as long as it stayed in the vehicle you wouldn't be prosecuted. But it might cost you your job if discovered.
It's quite clear. There's really no debate about how it's interpreted although it is pretty obvious that it's not being rigorously enforced in most places.
There are exceptions spelled out in the law.
You are talking about some state laws. There is no exception in federal law that allows a person to consider a vehicle a an extension of one's home/private property for the purpose of avoiding enforcement/prosecution of the federal school zone law.
You can if you have a qualifying state issued permit or if the gun is unloaded and locked up, as specified in the law.
It does not appear to be common, which is not surprising since it's a federal law and there aren't a lot of federal LE out there doing traffic stops. Some circumstances under which it could become an issue were mentioned early in the thread.
School policy (other than the exceptions listed in the law) doesn't affect federal law. What a particular school decides it will/won't allow isn't relevant to what federal law says.
The law says what the law says. It's important to understand that the level of enforcement or the frequency of prosecution doesn't change the law, only the chances of being caught/prosecuted. If, by some unfortunate combination of circumstances, someone does end up being caught and prosecuted under the stated law, the consequences could be severe and long-lasting in spite of the fact that prosecutions are not common. One could serve time in federal prison and lose the right to own firearms in the future and it wouldn't matter at that point that the law doesn't seem to be rigorously enforced in most places. Which is why it makes sense to be aware of the law and what it says.
What a person does with that knowledge is up to them.
Interesting update to this topic.
www.kulr8.com
"BILLINGS — A Billings man accused of illegally possessing a gun near a Billings elementary school appeared today in federal court on a firearms charge, U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich said.
Gabriel Cowan Metcalf, 49, had an initial appearance on a criminal complaint charging him with possessing a firearm within a school zone. If convicted, Metcalf faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $100,000 fine and three years of supervised release. (He will never legally possess a firearm again if convicted. )
The government alleged in court documents that from Aug. 2 to 17, the Billings Police Department received multiple calls and weapons complaints regarding Metcalf, who lives at 430 Broadwater Ave., walking on the sidewalk and around the area carrying a firearm. Broadwater Elementary School is directly across the street from Metcalf’s residence. The sidewalk and streets in front of Metcalf’s residence are public property within 1,000 feet from the school and are a “school zone” as defined in federal statutes."
It seems very likely that Mr. Metcalf thought what he was doing was legal, and it was, under state law. But it was not legal under federal law.
Billings man accused of illegal possession of firearm in school zone
News release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Montana
"BILLINGS — A Billings man accused of illegally possessing a gun near a Billings elementary school appeared today in federal court on a firearms charge, U.S. Attorney Jesse Laslovich said.
Gabriel Cowan Metcalf, 49, had an initial appearance on a criminal complaint charging him with possessing a firearm within a school zone. If convicted, Metcalf faces a maximum of five years in prison, a $100,000 fine and three years of supervised release. (He will never legally possess a firearm again if convicted. )
The government alleged in court documents that from Aug. 2 to 17, the Billings Police Department received multiple calls and weapons complaints regarding Metcalf, who lives at 430 Broadwater Ave., walking on the sidewalk and around the area carrying a firearm. Broadwater Elementary School is directly across the street from Metcalf’s residence. The sidewalk and streets in front of Metcalf’s residence are public property within 1,000 feet from the school and are a “school zone” as defined in federal statutes."
It seems very likely that Mr. Metcalf thought what he was doing was legal, and it was, under state law. But it was not legal under federal law.
Atavar
Member
Isn’t marijuana possession and use illegal by federal law, which is explicitly called out in line G of the firearms transaction form as regardless of State law? If you are a marijuana user you cannot purchase a gun or get a permit, even if it is legal in your state.
Considering the situation as described is the driver did not intend to stop, but was stopped while in transit and the LEO created the situation, would this be in violation?
Similar threads
