Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
HB3098 Constitutional Carry
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 2861569" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>This one actually <em>is</em> a slightly grey area, at least in the long term. The answer is "yes, for now; in the future, probably."</p><p></p><p>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 <em>Wickard</em> and <em>Raich</em>, the reach of the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to include objects that never even cross <em>property</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>A better question is "wouldn't an SDA license <em>from the state in which the school is located</em> still be needed?" Per the law:</p><p>[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code" target="_blank">18 U.S.C.</a> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922%28q%29%282%29%28A%29" target="_blank">§ 922(q)(2)(A)</a>] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—</p><p></p><p>(i) on private property not part of school grounds;</p><p></p><p>(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so <strong>by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State</strong>, 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]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 2861569, member: 13624"] This one actually [I]is[/I] 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 [I]Wickard[/I] and [I]Raich[/I], the reach of the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to include objects that never even cross [I]property[/I] 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 [I]from the state in which the school is located[/I] still be needed?" Per the law: [[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code']18 U.S.C.[/URL] [URL='http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922%28q%29%282%29%28A%29']§ 922(q)(2)(A)[/URL]] 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 [B]by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State[/B], 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] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
HB3098 Constitutional Carry
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
