Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA
22151
(703)321-8585
Some advocates, both in Congress and in the
Second Amendment community, have attempted to dismiss the tragic sweeping
importance of new federal legislation to create expansive "gun free zones"
around every American school. Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed
that "its effect on gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new
law will "have little effect."
Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work
frantically to pass this gun ban merely because they felt it would have a
minimal effect. And EVEN IF the impact of this new law was minimal, gun owners
should be outraged by ANY law restricting their rights. The Second Amendment
states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those
words do not leave any room for making compromises.
While some Second
Amendment advocates have minimized the significance of the "gun free zones,"
they further discount its importance by predicting that the act will be declared
unconstitutional by the courts. And yet, ironically, REPUBLICANS on the House
Judiciary Committee have issued a statement just as confidently predicting that
it will be upheld by the courts.
Here are some of the questions that been
raised, together with the answers to those questions:
Is this a sweeping piece of legislation?
The "gun free school zone"
legislation would create a virtual 1/2 mile wide "gun free" circle around every
American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any
school) -- a zone which could possibly include home schools. Anyone carrying a
gun within this "gun free zone" would be subject to five years in prison, unless
he or she has fulfilled one of the government-ordained exceptions to the law --
these exemptions treating our liberties more as privileges, rather than rights.
(More on this below.)
Isn't this the same as the law that was passed in 1990?
The new law is
virtually word-for-word the same as the previous law. When the first disastrous
"gun free zones" provision was passed in 1990, it was almost immediately
challenged. The effective date was January 27, 1991. By the first months of
1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which ultimately overturned the law
in the Supreme Court, had transpired. Aggressive enforcement was held in
abeyance while the constitutionality of this language wound its way through the
courts.
In this sense, this law was little different from other gun bans in
which enforcement was gradually tightened until the full repressive impact of
the legislation had been eased into place.
Will this law pass constitutional muster?
Those who rely on the courts
to save us from this vast expansion of federal gun laws by declaring the law
unconstitutional are playing a very dangerous game. Federal courts have not
generally been friends of the Second Amendment.
Furthermore, many analysts,
including the REPUBLICAN leadership on the House Judiciary Committee, are
predicting that the superficial changes made in the new act cure the
constitutional defects that allowed the 1990 safe schools bill to be overturned
by the courts in the Lopez decision.
Specifically, the new law requires that
the gun "affects interstate and foreign commerce." This "affects commerce"
language is so broad that, in one case, a farmer was held to have "affected
commerce" by growing and wholly consuming his own crops, on the basis that
commerce would be altered if every farmer did the same. Obviously, given this
interpretation, there would be no human activity that did not "affect commerce,"
and the change would have absolutely no impact on the implementation of the
unconstitutional 1990 law.
Does this superficial change alter the
constitutionality of the unconstitutional 1990 version? Some members of the
Second Amendment community believe it does not. Republicans on the House
Judiciary Committee argue just as adamantly that it does.
The real answer is
that no one knows. It is possible that a court will overturn this statute. BUT,
if it does not, we will be stuck with one of the most repressive gun bans on the
record books.
Could this law ban gun ownership by home schoolers?
The law bans guns
within 1,000 feet from the "grounds" of a "public, parochial or private
school..." "School" means "a school which provides elementary or secondary
education, as defined under State law."
Contrary to the assertions of the
House Judiciary Committee, most -- if not all -- states do recognize that home
schools provide "elementary or secondary education" for the purpose of exempting
those students from the mandatory attendance requirements of state law.
The
act does NOT specifically look to state law with respect to the question of
whether a "home school" is a "private school." But there is a substantial danger
that courts will make that finding. Webster's Dictionary defines "private" to
mean: "2. not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public [a private
school]." Obviously, a home school is not open to, intended for, or controlled
by the public. Every educated advocate interested in preserving home schools who
has reviewed this problem has reached the same conclusion: there is too much of
a danger that this act will be interpreted to prohibit the possession of
firearms by parents who home school their kids.
In fact, Republicans on the
House Judiciary Committee have privately conceded the dangers for home schools,
quietly assuring other House Republicans that they would be willing to entertain
a "clarification" protecting home schools. Unfortunately, these "assurances" are
too-little, too-late.
Aren't there adequate exemptions to protect law-abiding gun
owners?
Let's look at these "so-called" exemptions:
THE BOGUS "HUNTER
EXEMPTION:" The so-called "hunter exemption" applies only when the school
authorities specifically give permission for a hunter to cross their property --
and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming that a hunter on the way to a
hunting trip would have to cross fifty school zones, that hunter would have to
check with all fifty schools -- or risk being a felon if he did not qualify
under another exemption.
THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun
free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state
that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means
that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this
provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What this
so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the authorities as
a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon in his or her
car.
While many gun owners have made the choice to register themselves in
order to carry concealed, many have decided to keep their names off of any
government list. (In fact, the recent abuses in states like Virginia and
Pennsylvania -- where newspapers are printing the names of CCW holders -- show
how easily this registration information can be abused.) Before this "gun free
zones" law, motorists in many states could legally transport a loaded firearm
for self-defense, without getting a CCW permit.
For example, Vermont allows
any citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. (Vermont law only
prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm with the purpose of committing a
crime.) Thus, citizens in Vermont can carry legally without jumping through any
government-ordained "hoops" -- there is no registration, license fees or taxes.
But now under the federal gun free zones provision, law-abiding motorists from
Vermont and other states will have to beware. Those who could previously
transport a loaded firearm will be stripped of their right to carry a
self-defense firearm within 1,000 feet of a school (unless they qualify under
another exemption).
THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely
limited exemption would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm
in a LOCKED BOX or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW
permit as explained above. Even an UNLOADED gun kept in a glove compartment for
self-protection would subject the bearer to a five-year prison sentence.
Furthermore, this is true even if the person transporting the gun is an OFF-DUTY
POLICE OFFICER.
Note: Citizens in states like Virginia and Colorado should
beware. While these states allow motorists to carry a firearm in the passenger
compartment, an obvious conflict arises now when the motorist comes within 1,000
feet (about 3 blocks) of a school. Many jurisdictions now set up road blocks to
give sobriety checks and check for seat belts being worn. Police who conduct
these road blocks within a school zone will now have one more "prohibited
activity" to inspect for.
THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that
a person living within a school zone would not automatically have to relinquish
his guns, it would be UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE
STREET OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE. Furthermore, the private property exemption only
applies to "private property not part of school grounds." Home schools might not
be exempted since these clearly fall within the definition of a school under
U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921), which defines a "school" as a place which "provides
elementary or secondary education as determined under state law."
Don't most states have comparable laws?
No. Many states have laws which,
on their face, are much narrower than the federal law and do not create mammoth
"gun-free zones." For instance, Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on
"school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to
name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school
buildings" or at "school functions." The fact that the expansive federal law is
putting pressure on states to enact equally repressive measures at the state
level is a recent development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect
of the new law. (1)
Aside from that, while a few states, such as New York and
Massachusetts, have specialized in firearms repression, most have been
considerably less abusive than BATF in interpreting and enforcing anti-gun
statutes, even when those statutes may be overbroad. Even if the only impact of
this legislation were its massive expansion of BATF authority, this would be a
very bad law.
Finally, and obviously, anti-gun zealots did not work
frantically to pass this piece of legislation merely because they felt it was
redundant of state legislation currently on the books.
Here we go again
Gun owners should not be confused when they hear
leaders in the gun community telling them that anti-gun legislation is not that
bad, that such a law will "have little effect." Gun owners have heard this song
and dance for almost a century.
For years, gun leaders have bargained with
Congressmen, giving the wink and nod to anti-gun legislation that is "not too
bad."
Consider that in 1934, the executive vice-president of one gun
organization testified in Congress that, "You can be just as severe with machine
guns and sawed-off shotguns as you desire, and we will go along with you." (2)
With this endorsement, Congress subsequently passed the Gun Control Act of
1934.
In 1963, another executive vice-president of the same gun group told
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) that, "I do not deny you have a problem with
mail-order guns, Senator. We want to do everything we can to help you. We will
support any reasonable type of legislation to beat that type of business because
it is unconscionable." (3) Five years later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was
enacted.
At first, each of these laws may have appeared to "have little
effect." But at a minimum, the National Firearms Act of 1934 resulted in Randy
Weaver losing his wife almost 60 years later, and gave the "justification" for
the raid on the Davidians in Texas. The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted in the
elevation of the BATF to its current status -- an agency which required separate
legislation in 1986 to curb many of its abuses.
Indeed, the gun free zones
legislation must be repealed. To leave such a slow-ticking time bomb in the
federal code only invites the future harassment of gun owners (at best) and
future Randy Weaver-type incidents (at worst). 1. Even many of the states that have "school zone" laws are not as
restrictive as the federal law. For instance, while Florida has a law
prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, it only applies "during
school hours" or during the time of a "sanctioned school activity." (The federal
law applies 24 hours a day.)
And while Texas contains language regarding
firearms within 300 feet of a school, this zone of "300 feet" only enhances
penalties for a crime committed within that area. In other words, one can
legally carry a firearm within 300 feet of a school in Texas -- the law only
gives an enhanced penalty for committing a crime within that same distance. The
federal law, of course, extends much further than the Texas law. The federal law
applies a ban on the possession of a gun (not just an enhanced penalty for the
commission of a crime as in Texas), and the federal statute extends the gun free
zone up to 1,000 feet from a school (not just to 300 feet as under Texas law).
2. U.S., Congress, House, National Firearms Act, Hearings, on H.R. 9066, 73d
Cong., 2d Sess., 1934, p. 30, cited in Lee Kennett and James La Verne Anderson,
The Gun in America: The Origins of a National Dilemma, 1975, p. 210.
3.
U.S., Congress, Senate, Dodd Committee, Hearings, 1963, p. 3483, cited in The
Gun in America, p. 229.
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:47:03 -0800
From: peckeg79@yahoo.com
Subject:
Fw: Bad news for CCH
To: sparke01@msn.com
I just learned of this recently and definitely did
not know of it when
you took my class (it's NOT in the KSAG's training
material!), but I've
got BAD news for those of us who "carry" out-of-state,
even in those
states which recognize Kansas' CCH license. Basically,
CONCEALED-CARRY
RECIPROCITY and ALL UNLICENSED CARRY OF ANY KIND is
effectively BANNED
under the GFSZAct, which states, among other
things:
Title 18 U.S.C Section 922:
(q) [MAC: I've snipped a
gazillion lines here and elsewhere!]
(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:
[...snipped...]
(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;
[...several more exceptions snipped...]
Title 18 U.S.C. Section
921
(25) The term "school zone" means:
(A) in, or on the grounds of, a
public, parochial or private school; or
(B) within a distance of 1,000
feet from the grounds of a public,
parochial or private
school.
(26) The term "school" means a school which provides elementary
or
secondary education, as determined under State law.
[...all
the rest has been snipped...]
NOTE those words in (q)(B)(ii); the
GFSZAct exception for CCH licensees
applies ONLY to schools IN THE STATE
WHICH ISSUED THE LICENSE! Although
States can SAY or WRITE whatever they
want, FEDERAL law "trumps" all
state laws, and so the GFSZAct essentially
NULLIFIES concealed-carry
reciprocity agreements between States.
Furthermore, court cases have
upheld the BATFE's interpretation!
The GFSZA of 1995 voids
concealed-carry reciprocity agreements between States:
"Although the Federal GFSZA does
provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this
exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit.
Forty-eight (48) States have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to
citizens. Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other
States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits,
just as they recognize an out-of-state driver's license. Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State in which the
school zone is in, it is effectively impossible for a permit holder to travel
outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without
violating the Federal GFSZA."
and another article on this subject can be found
at:
One exception to this law, is
if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container.
A second exception
is having the firearm "on private property not part of school grounds."
Remember, the roads/highways/sidewalks are not private property, so this
exception does not apply while driving on public streets.
A third
exception, is if the person possessing the firearm has a concealed carry permit
issued by the State in which the school zone is located. This means that as the
law is written, and as it has been
interpreted by BATFE, if a person with a concealed carry permit is in any State other than the
State that physically issued their permit, and they drive within 1000 feet of
any K-12 school (which is impossible to avoid) with an unlocked gun, they are
committing a federal crime. Violation of this law is punishable by up to
five (5) years in federal prison and a conviction will bar a person from owning
firearms for life
Comments
Post has no comments.