Reciprocity is Currently Banned Under Federal Law (Very Important Please Read)

[Cougar]

It appears that we finally got the federal ban on licensed concealed carry in national parks lifted, and I am overjoyed to see that the Department of Interior specifically recognizes state reciprocity agreements in their ruling. However, we still face a very heinous and dangerous federal gun law, which was passed in 1996 by the United States Congress and signed by President William Clinton. A law that most people are unaware of, and violate everyday. A law which threatens nearly all seemingly lawful carry and transportation of firearms in the country and subjects violators to a five year term in federal prison, in addition to the permanent loss of their right to own guns for the rest of their life. Don't think this law effects you? Don't think you've ever violated this law? Do you think it's legal to carry your handgun outside your home state under reciprocity agreements? Think again.



I am referring to Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q) known as The "Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995." This law, originally passed in 1990, was ruled unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez (1995) and was subsequently rewritten and passed by Congress in 1996, to get around the court's ruling. This "improved" law is currently in effect and was ruled constitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v Dorsey (2005). The way the law is written, and the way the BATF interprets the law, a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun by a state (such as Oklahoma) commits a federal crime punishable by five years in prison and permanent loss of their gun rights if they drive down the street, and pass within 1000 feet of the property line of any public or private K-12 school, in a reciprocal state. This is the worst gun law that currently exists in our country and we need to fix it, as it effectively eliminates all concealed carry reciprocity agreements. It also effectively eliminates all unlicensed open carry and all unlicensed car carry in states that allow such activities under state law. Ironically, law enforcement officers carrying under LEOSA are also not exempt from the GFSZA, as it is a federal law, and can not drive across town without violating this law. We must work to amend the GFSZA so that it recognizes reciprocity agreements between states and other lawful carry under state law.

I have been tirelessly writing and calling our representatives trying to amend this law, and honestly nobody seems to care. I'm very disappointed in the people that are supposed to be representing me. I've gotten many reasons for their lack of interest in pursuing this issue, but the one that troubles me most is their perceived lack of support from the NRA and the average gun owner. I have done extensive research and have not found any effort to amend this law, other than the "Citizens Protection Act of 2007" which was sponsored by Texas representative Ron Paul. The Citizens Protection Act would have repealed the GFSZA, but unfortunately never came to a vote. We need to educate all gun owners on this law so they can become as passionate about this cause as I am. We need to band together and lobby the United States Congress for a simple amendment correcting the obvious flaws in this law.

Many people think this law has never been enforced. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This revised law has indeed been enforced, against several people, including an Alabama permit holder in United States v Tait (2000). And as mentioned above, was held constitutional, in 2005 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v Dorsey.


Note that there is no exemption in the law for the discharge of a firearm in a school zone by a permit holder, even in their home state... under any circumstance


Also note, that the law specifically states for the purposes of the permit exemption in B(ii) that the "law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." Technically this could be construed to mean that a permit issued under state law by a non law-enforcement official (mayor, court clerk etc.) would not qualify for the exemption, and may actually disqualify every permit issued by the state from the exemption. (See PGNH.org FAQ)



Apparently a letter was written many years ago by then Director of the BATF John Magaw to Senator Dan Coats stating that if a homeschool was recognized as a private school under state law that it would qualify under the GFSZA. This would put a 1000ft "safety" zone around every homeschool in the state. I haven't been able to locate this letter, but apparently it prompted a lawsuit.





Please review all the links I have included below. I can't do this alone. Will you help me?



Federal GFSZA 922(q):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

Non-Wikipedia GFSZA Link: Scroll down to section (q): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

BATF Opinion (2002) on Reciprocity: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

United States v Dorsey(2005)Upholds Constitutionality of GFSZA:
http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1136446

United States v Tait (2000) Attempted Prosecution of an Alabama Permit Holder:
http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2000/99-11825.man.html

Homeschoolers Attempt to File Suit: http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/extras/HSLDAguns.htm

Federal Gun Free School Zones Plotted on City Maps: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

William Clinton on GFSZA Renewal: http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/documents/104/hd072.pdf

Congressional Record S7920-7921: http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/gunlaw.html

Changes made after Lopez Ruling: http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

 

[Cougar]

Title 18 U.S.C. §922(q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that-
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves-even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
(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.


Title 18 U.S.C. §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.

 

[underdog]

I doubt next year's Congress will amend this law. I think a better tact is for someone like NRA to challenge it's constitutionality post-Heller or the conflict between this law and states like TX which allow carry on school grounds.

Those who tip-toe around OK's Self-Defense Act with tricks like getting a Utah license ought to take note of this law as well. It's pretty difficult to know when you are within 1,000 feet of a school.

To avoid the court ruling Congress added section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce." That would make prosecution of a CCW holder difficult in my mind, but still a law we don't need.

 

[redmax51]

It sounds like a law that would be largely ignored by all but the states inhabited by the most anti-gun officials.I generally avoid those states anyway.I agree it is a heinous and back door method of gun control that unfortunately we will more likely see more of in the forseeable future. Steve

 

[mons meg]

Is the OP trying to imply that if I drive to Texas, I have to watch out for school zones?

 

[Burk Cornelius]

It would appear that section ii excludes those with a valid license to conceal carry?

(A) does not apply to the possession of a 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;

 

[Cougar]

Mons Meg, that is exactly what I'm implying. BurkLee, that section only exempts you in the state where your license is from. If you have an Oklahoma CCW you are exempt from GFSZA in Oklahoma and Oklahoma only. If you go to Texas you are not exempt (under BATF opinion) from this federal law unless you actually have a permit that says Texas on it. Please take a few moments to Read the BATF letter I linked to in the OP.

 

[mons meg]

Well, that's a bunch of horsehockey. Of course, that ATF representative doesn't mention that the "1000 foot rule" was the primary reason the original law got struck down as unconstitutional in the first place, right? Meaning, that the new law would almost certainly have that section struck as unconstitutional should it be challenged.

 

[Cougar]

Unfortunately this is not the case. The original law was struck down as over reaching the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The court found this way because the original law did not mention commerce in any way. The amended law, which requires that the firearm have moved in interstate commerce at some point in it's life is very likely constitutional (or more accurately will be ruled as such by SCOTUS) as it is worded similar to the federal law banning felons from possessing firearms which has been upheld countless times. This revised GFSZA was indeed held constitutional as recently as 2005 in United States v Dorsey by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for that reason. Click the link if you want to read the entire case.

 

[ninefan]

Our... Congress... is... retarded.