HB3098 Constitutional Carry

[Poke78]

I differentiate between hyperbole (a wild exaggeration not intended literally) and a misstatement of fact. A misstatement is what we have in the portion that I quoted. The question then becomes one of whether the misstatement was an honest mistake on his part or a deliberate lie. That is a judgment that I can't make. Either way, his credibility should be damaged.

No doubt there is a misstatement of fact, no argument from me about that. You've backed up everything with hard facts.

How about we settle on it being a bald misstatement of fact that's been couched in ridiculous hyperbolic language in a transparent attempt to bolster a weak argument? Or, we could go with that the whole argument made in that article is one fallacy piled on top of another: appeal to emotion, appeal to fear, appeal to ridicule, etc.

 

[Dave70968]

I repeat the question: wouldn't an SDA license still be needed for carry in a school zone?

This one actually is a slightly grey area, at least in the long term. The answer is "yes, for now; in the future, probably."

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 made it a crime to possess a firearm within a school zone. The Supreme Court struck down that law in 1995 as an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. Congress amended the law to make it a crime to possess within a school zone a firearm "that has moved in interstate commerce." Through Wickard and Raich, the reach of the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to include objects that never even cross property lines, let alone state lines. The law is on the books, it is being enforced, and seven circuits have upheld it (including the 10th, our circuit). I have not found any circuit that has struck it down on constitutional grounds, though there are a few convictions that have been reversed for lack of knowledge of the school. At this time, it should be considered to be the law. Will it stand if challenged in the Supreme Court? I don't know; I would guess "probably," even though the slight wording change appears to be an attempt to directly circumvent the prior holding, but who knows.

A better question is "wouldn't an SDA license from the state in which the school is located still be needed?" Per the law:
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(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; [emphasis added]

 

[gerhard1]

This one actually is a slightly grey area, at least in the long term. The answer is "yes, for now; in the future, probably."

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 made it a crime to possess a firearm within a school zone. The Supreme Court struck down that law in 1995 as an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. Congress amended the law to make it a crime to possess within a school zone a firearm "that has moved in interstate commerce." Through Wickard and Raich, the reach of the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to include objects that never even cross property lines, let alone state lines. The law is on the books, it is being enforced, and seven circuits have upheld it (including the 10th, our circuit). I have not found any circuit that has struck it down on constitutional grounds, though there are a few convictions that have been reversed for lack of knowledge of the school. At this time, it should be considered to be the law. Will it stand if challenged in the Supreme Court? I don't know; I would guess "probably," even though the slight wording change appears to be an attempt to directly circumvent the prior holding, but who knows.

A better question is "wouldn't an SDA license from the state in which the school is located still be needed?" Per the law:
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(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; [emphasis added]

You raise a very good point here. Please note that the statute does not say that the license has to be issued by the state in which the school is located, it only says that the individual must be licensed by the state in which the school is located. If Kansas honors SDA licenses (and they do), are we not then licensed by Kansas to carry?

While I think that the statutory language backs me up here, I do concede that the courts don't look at it like this. There are a couple of possibilities for relief here, however and one of them is for states like Kansas and Oklahoma to amend their respective laws to permit out of state residents to apply for and receive CCW licenses. The other is to revise the GFSZA to specify that OOS CCW licenses are honored. I think, however, that under a Democratic Administration that revising the GFSZA would be next to impossible.

 

[Dave70968]

You raise a very good point here. Please note that the statute does not say that the license has to be issued by the state in which the school is located, it only says that the individual must be licensed by the state in which the school is located. If Kansas honors SDA licenses (and they do), are we not then licensed by Kansas to carry?

I disagree; you are licensed by Oklahoma, and Kansas honors your license. Just as you are licensed by Oklahoma to drive (I'm assuming, anyway), but other states honor your Oklahoma license.

 

[gerhard1]

All right Dave, your point is a good one. Absent a revision of the GFSZA, which I don't see happening if Hillary is elected, the next-best thing would be for the states to deal with it themselves. What I have in mind is that the states like Kansas and Oklahoma, pass legislation to issue CCW licenses to non-residents, issuing on the same basis that they do to residents. I am in Kansas often enough to make such an investment well worth my while. In other words, delete the residency requirements to get a CCW.

Would you get behind something like this?

 

[FRISKY]

All right Dave, your point is a good one. Absent a revision of the GFSZA, which I don't see happening if Hillary is elected, the next-best thing would be for the states to deal with it themselves. What I have in mind is that the states like Kansas and Oklahoma, pass legislation to issue CCW licenses to non-residents, issuing on the same basis that they do to residents. I am in Kansas often enough to make such an investment well worth my while. In other words, delete the residency requirements to get a CCW.

Would you get behind something like this?

Would the taxes from licenses to non-residents need to be handled differently? Is it possible the home state of those purchasers would want a cut?

 

[gerhard1]

Would the taxes from licenses to non-residents need to be handled differently? Is it possible the home state of those purchasers would want a cut?

Other states provide for issuing CCW licenses to non-residents. My suggestion would be to look at how they do it and then follow the one(s) that we choose. I don't see any real reason not to.

 

[3/2ACR Vet]

Interesting story on the Constitutional Carry Bill

http://www.normantranscript.com/new...cle_7ff797f9-f2e1-5b93-bae8-8298fd98d1ae.html

Apparently, the State Representative for Norman, Emily Virgin, has "...never heard a constituent complain that they are not able to get a permit to carry their gun or that the current requirements are too burdensome...". Now, I personally think that the $200+ I spent on my permit, and the time I'm waiting for it (38 days and counting still) are pretty darn burdensome. However, when I attempted to communicate this to Miss Virgin via Twitter, she came out and said that my opinions do not matter to her, because I do not live in her district.

Anyone here from Norman want to do me a solid and let her know that she does indeed have constituents who disagree with her perception on this?

Her Twitter is @RepEmilyVirgin and, to her credit, she did respond to my comment almost immediately. She only dropped the convo and ignored me once I pointed out the hypocrisy of her only listening to "her consitutents", yet taking money for her campaign from people and organizations from all across Oklahoma, and several outside states.

 

[CHenry]

This passed the House rules committee today!
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb3098

 

[rawhide]

This passed the House rules committee today!
http://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=hb3098

Great news. Passed Senate Rules committee. The calls helped. HB3098 passed also