HR 2613: Citizens Protection Act...Looks like John Sullivan is not supporting it

[mons meg]

Sullivan conveniently forgets that the first GFSZA got tossed by the SCOTUS, til Congress passed another GFSZA with a couple different pronouns in it. Since then, nobody has gotten dinged for it that I know of, since that would give them standing to ask SCOTUS to toss GFSZA version 1.01

 

[Glocktogo]

FWIW, here's the law:

18 USC 922(q)(1) Federal Gun-Free School Zones

(2)(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--

(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;
(iii) that is--

(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone
and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm--

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is
participating in the program;
(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

This version of the law has been upheld at lower court levels, but has not been heard by the SCOTUS. I still believe that it's unconstitutional, because the language is overly vague and it apples restrictions to unmarked areas not encompassed by the school's property, exclusions notwithstanding. As the law is written, I fail to see how anyone could be successfully prosecuted if they weren't actually on school grounds, absent a confession that they knew they were within a school zone. This law needs to be rolled back to within the boundaries of the school property itself. It's a do nothing, feel good law anyway.

 

[mons meg]

FWIW, here's the law:



This version of the law has been upheld at lower court levels, but has not been heard by the SCOTUS. I still believe that it's unconstitutional, because the language is overly vague and it apples restrictions to unmarked areas not encompassed by the school's property, exclusions notwithstanding. As the law is written, I fail to see how anyone could be successfully prosecuted if they weren't actually on school grounds, absent a confession that they knew they were within a school zone. This law needs to be rolled back to within the boundaries of the school property itself. It's a do nothing, feel good law anyway.

IIRC, the first version was tossed by the SCOTUS for those very reasons, overly vague, and outside the Commerce Clause power (see US v.Lopez)

ETA: I don't see how this version survives the SCOTUS if it gets that high; it's quite clearly interfering with the general police power of the individual states. Of course I'm dreaming...

 

[abajaj11]

So, to recap Sullivan's position:

Does that about sum it up? Perhaps he should turn in his NRA membership for one of these instead?

[Broken External Image]

Yep, I'm voting for Bridenstine. He may turn out no better, but at least we'll be sending a message.

My reasoning exactly.

 

[Shadowrider]

This has bugged me for a long time. Are there any federal laws on public right of way? I'm assuming so and I am confused on how a right is revoked while inside of a school zone.

I hate to use it but it does seem correct to my understanding. From Wikipedia:

Right of way is a term first used to describe the right to travel unhindered, to access a route regardless of land ownership or any other legality.

The right of way may be limited. If one person owns a piece of land which is bordered on all sides by lands owned by others, a court will be obliged to grant the right of way to those approved by the owner or owners of the isolated land area. It is also common practice for the public to be granted the right of way on a path or track which is in common use for a lengthy period of time (see Easement). Public right of way is not restricted by land ownership and grants travel access to all.

Any LEOs or resident attorneys have any insight on how the above law trumps? I'm far too ignernt to go looking up federal statutes.

 

[Glocktogo]

This has bugged me for a long time. Are there any federal laws on public right of way? I'm assuming so and I am confused on how a right is revoked while inside of a school zone.

I hate to use it but it does seem correct to my understanding. From Wikipedia:

Any LEOs or resident attorneys have any insight on how the above law trumps? I'm far too ignernt to go looking up federal statutes.

It would seem to me that a total ban on a public right of way would be in direct conflict with Heller.

 

[1fast8]

But how do people know that he is any different?

well i have met him a couple of times and talked to him he will tell you what his priorities are,and for me his veiws are more in line with mine than any other canidate. he is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility,supports the constution including 2A and he is a decorated military pilot and supports family values. i know you guys dont know me go here him speak in owasso fri night be your own judge

 

[vvvvvvv]

well i have met him a couple of times and talked to him he will tell you what his priorities are,and for me his veiws are more in line with mine than any other canidate. he is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility,supports the constution including 2A and he is a decorated military pilot and supports family values. i know you guys dont know me go here him speak in owasso fri night be your own judge

I've had many politicians tell me their "priorities", but soon after getting into office their votes don't line up with their stated priorities.

"he is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility,supports the constution including 2A and he is a decorated military pilot and supports family values" sounds like a standard brochure or robocall.

And how does being "a decorated military pilot" make one more qualified to be elected? Military accomplishments sure haven't been a very good indicator of political integrity in the past.

 

[Glocktogo]

I've had many politicians tell me their "priorities", but soon after getting into office their votes don't line up with their stated priorities.

"he is a strong supporter of fiscal responsibility,supports the constution including 2A and he is a decorated military pilot and supports family values" sounds like a standard brochure or robocall.

And how does being "a decorated military pilot" make one more qualified to be elected? Military accomplishments sure haven't been a very good indicator of political integrity in the past.

Question is, will he be better than do nothing Sullivan? In most cases, I want my representative to do less. Sullivan just does it a little too well.

 

[okie98]

Time to send John home.