So you think that Permitless Carry is legal in your state?

[theotherwaldo]

Do you have a carry permit issued by your state?

Yep.
It's called a License to Carry Handgun.
I renewed it recently, although a carry permit is no longer required to CC in Texas.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Yep.
It's called a License to Carry Handgun.
I renewed it recently, although a carry permit is no longer required to CC in Texas.

Then you don't have a problem.

 

[bearcreek]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read that law, a person is only covered for weapons that their state permit covers. So rifles and shotguns would not be ok in most states, since most permits are specific to handguns. That seem right?

 

[JohnKSa]

That does seem to be what it says.

"...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so..."

In my state, for example, one can not be licensed to carry a long gun because it's always been legal to carry/possess long guns without a license. That's an interesting wrinkle.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That does seem to be what it says.

"...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so..."

In my state, for example, one can not be licensed to carry a long gun because it's always been legal to carry/possess long guns without a license. That's an interesting wrinkle.

Which begats ANOTHER interesting wrinkle.

Might there be a conflict in any legal obligations to inform a LEO of the presence of any firearms in the vehicle if he asks? I'm thinking specifically about self-incrimination.

Sorry if I'm not wording this very well, but I'm at work and short on time while taking a break. Gotta dash.

 

[dogtown tom]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read that law, a person is only covered for weapons that their state permit covers. So rifles and shotguns would not be ok in most states, since most permits are specific to handguns. That seem right?

It's "the person" not the firearm:
(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;

 

[old lady new shooter]

if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so

That does look like the individual has to be licensed to possess the firearm in question.

Any case law on this?

 

[dogtown tom]

That does look like the individual has to be licensed to possess the firearm in question.

Any case law on this?

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
Convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include:

• United States v. Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)
• United States v. Smith (Sixth Circuit 2005)
• United States v. Dorsey (Ninth Circuit 2005)
• United States v. Nieves-Castaño (First Circuit 2007)
• United States v. Weekes (Third Circuit 2007)
• United States v. Benally (Tenth Circuit 2007)
• United States v. Cruz-Rodriguez (First Circuit 2008)

Convictions overturned post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zones Act include:

• United States v. Tait (Eleventh Circuit 2000)
• United States v. Haywood (Third Circuit 2002)
• United States v. Guzman-Montanez (First Circuit 2014)

 

[JohnKSa]

The law states:

"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 exception states:

"...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;..."​

It hinges on what "do so" means. "Do so" is usually taken to mean "do the thing that was previously mentioned". In that case "to do so" would mean "to possess the firearm", which is the most likely meaning. Then the exception would be taken to mean: "...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to possess the firearm by the State..."

That would mean that the licensing would have to apply to the possession of the firearm in question. If the State license only applies to the possession of handguns, then it wouldn't be relevant to the possession of a long gun.

Alternatively, the exception could be taken to mean: "...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to possess a firearm by the State...", in which case it wouldn't matter what firearm was possessed.

I can't get any of the links to work. It would be interesting to see if there are any cases where it's clear which definition is used.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The law states:

"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."​

This is interesting, because it essentially establishes the authority (and boundaries) of the federal government with respect to this statute.

Which brings up another question:

If a firearm were entirely manufactured within the state, and never left the state at any time afterwards, would this statute apply at all?

 

[JohnKSa]

Wickard v. Filburn says that "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce" can have an extremely broad interpretation.

 

[dogtown tom]

This is interesting, because it essentially establishes the authority (and boundaries) of the federal government with respect to this statute.

Which brings up another question:

If a firearm were entirely manufactured within the state, and never left the state at any time afterwards, would this statute apply at all?

Ask Jeremy Kettler and Shane Cox how that theory worked out for them.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Ask Jeremy Kettler and Shane Cox how that theory worked out for them.

I'm not asking how this theory worked out for any specific individual/scenario. Details make all the difference in every legal case and just because one case turns out one way or another doesn't mean it will in another case, because the details will never be exactly the same.

And, speaking of details, those are very much lacking in the link you provided. They may not even have anything to do with the specifics we're discussing in this thread.

I'm asking about the viability of a federal statute over something for which the statute itself is not jurisdictionally applicable, in the context of this thread's topic.

I'm not an attorney...as I've pointed out before. But I'm very much aware that a "common sense, layman's understanding" of the law can indeed not align with the naked realities of how specific laws actually apply. But we DO have attorneys on this site who can, perhaps, explain the limitations and nuances applicable.

 

[old lady new shooter]

It would be interesting to see if there are any cases where it's clear which definition is used.

That is what I meant when I asked if there is any case law on this.

 

[dogtown tom]

I'm not asking how this theory worked out for any specific individual/scenario. Details make all the difference in every legal case and just because one case turns out one way or another doesn't mean it will in another case, because the details will never be exactly the same.

And, speaking of details, those are very much lacking in the link you provided. They may not even have anything to do with the specifics we're discussing in this thread.

You asked: "If a firearm were entirely manufactured within the state, and never left the state at any time afterwards, would this statute apply at all?"
I linked a case that answers your question exactly as you asked for. The Kansas law that these two nitwits relied on didn't exempt them from the federal law that requires a tax and federal registration.
If you want more details....Google is your friend and you'll get hundreds of hits. This case like several others, is due to the so called "Firearm Freedom Laws" that states have passed that purport to exempt their residents from federal gun laws. It.Don't.Work. The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution clearly explains why. This topic has been discussed regularly on THR since Montana passed their law in 2009.

Such laws have zero effect on federal law and IMO cause good people to go to jail or lose their gun rights forever. It should always be noted that the State of Kansas, the supposed Kansas conservatives that wrote and passed this law were nowhere to be found when Cox and Kettler went to trial. Cox and Kettler appealed all the way to SCOTUS and were denied cert.

I'm asking about the viability of a federal statute over something for which the statute itself is not jurisdictionally applicable, in the context of this thread's topic.

In ANY context, a "firearm were entirely manufactured within the state, and never left the state at any time afterwards..." is still within the jurisdiction of federal law.
As I linked above, it was decided in Wickard v Filburn, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution applies whether it remains in the state or not, as long as it affects interstate commerce.
From that 1942 decision:
"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was "production", "consumption", or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. ... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as "direct" or "indirect"."

So........"jurisdictionally applicable"? You better believe it.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

"Whether the subject of the regulation in question was "production", "consumption", or "marketing" is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. ... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as "direct" or "indirect"."

Thank you.

However, the wording emphasised in red seems to also work to limit federal reach. "...it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce..."

Exactly HOW is "substantial economic effect" to be determined? One could reasonably posit that such items would, in reality, have virtually no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce overall.

 

[Frank Ettin]

In general, it’s kind of a ”sucker bet” to count on a court invalidating on Commerce Clause grounds a law one doesn’t like.

it does happen; but the Commerce Clause is, as applied by the courts, remarkably elastic and gets stretched a good deal.

 

[Gelrir]

Thank you.

However, the wording emphasised in red seems to also work to limit federal reach. "...it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce..."

Exactly HOW is "substantial economic effect" to be determined? One could reasonably posit that such items would, in reality, have virtually no impact whatsoever on interstate commerce overall.

Wickard v. Filburn corned 239 bushels of wheat, for which (if I did the math right) the farmer faced a penalty of $117.11. Whether or not you feel the Commerce Clause is being stretched to cover "in a state" actions, "... the production of wheat for consumption on the farm may be trivial in the particular case is not enough to remove the grower from the scope of federal regulation ..." . https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/

 

[Spats McGee]

That does seem to be what it says.

"...if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so..."

In my state, for example, one can not be licensed to carry a long gun because it's always been legal to carry/possess long guns without a license. That's an interesting wrinkle.

Another interesting aspect to that wrinkle, as far as long guns go. In Arkansas (and probably a whole bunch of other states), there is no state license for a long gun, and that means there's no mechanism to get a license, either.