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

[technetium-99m]

Not to steal the thread, but how is having a Utah permit tiptoeing around the OK laws?

GT

 

[Cougar]

That has nothing to do with this thread

 

[Jon1911]

Who made a big deal out of this? Gun Owners are their own worst enemies.


Dorsey was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(q)(2)(A), and 924(a)(4).

Here's 922(q)(2)(A), private property not on school grounds is excluded.

(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;

924(a)(4) describes the penalty for breaking 922(q)(2)(A)

(a)(4) Whoever violates section 922(q) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. Except for the authorization of a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years made in this paragraph, for the purpose of any other law a violation of section 922(q) shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor.

Tell me how being near a school on public roads or private property is a crime anywhere under Dorsey because I don't see it.

 

[Cougar]

The following quotes are taken from the United States v Dorsey (2005) appellate ruling.

The Lopez decision did not alter this rule that a jurisdictional element will bring a federal criminal statute within Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. In fact, Lopez rejected § 922(q) in part because it did not follow Bass:

Contrary to the prior version of § 922(q) discussed in Lopez, the current version includes a "requirement that [the defendant's] possession of the firearm have a[ ] concrete tie to interstate commerce." Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567, 115 S.Ct. 1624. This new version of § 922(q) resolves the shortcomings that the Lopez Court found in the prior version of this statute because it incorporates a "jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case-by-case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce." Id. at 561, 115 S.Ct. 1624. This jurisdictional element saves § 922(q) from the infirmity that defeated it in Lopez.

Dorsey's motion to dismiss Count Three of the indictment on the ground that 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause was properly denied.

United States v Dorsey is important because the appeals court upheld a conviction under the revised GFSZA and said the problems addressed in Lopez had been resolved.

A public road is not private property, therefore you are not exempt from this law while traveling on a public road/highway unless you fall under another exception. Now I refer you to the statute that defines what a "school zone" is under this law.

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.

 

[Cougar]

The fact is, this law needs to be amended. I hope a federal prosecutor would use discretion when enforcing this law, but until it is amended, I will personally make every effort to obey it. Because, I am, after all, a law-abiding citizen.

 

[mons meg]

Has anybody ever been prosecuted for this? Anywhere?

 

[Cougar]

Yes, here are a few prosecutions.


United States v Tait (2000) http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2000/99-11825.man.html

United States v Haywood (2003) http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1130008

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

United States v Smith (2005) http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/79680

United States v Benally (2007) http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/134604

United States v Weekes (2007) http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/177709

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008) http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1668141


Pay special attention to the case of United States v Tait, as an Alabama permit holder was prosecuted in Alabama... with the government arguing his permit did not exempt him, even in Alabama.

Also pay attention to United States v Dorsey, where the court ruled that the current law is constitutional and fully enforceable.

 

[mons meg]

Those all seem to be prosecutions with the possession in a "school zone" as a secondary count after felon-in-possession, etc, or outright possession on actual school grounds. I'm talking about a case wherein some dude gets pulled over for say, speeding in Texas with a Louisiana permit, and gets jammed up for being within 1000 feet of a school without an in-state permit.

Not to dismiss the idea entirely, but there's been exactly zero traffic on this from all the different legal/2A type blogs I frequent. Just sayin...

 

[redmax51]

Those all seem to be prosecutions with the possession in a "school zone" as a secondary count after felon-in-possession, etc, or outright possession on actual school grounds. I'm talking about a case wherein some dude gets pulled over for say, speeding in Texas with a Louisiana permit, and gets jammed up for being within 1000 feet of a school without an in-state permit.

Not to dismiss the idea entirely, but there's been exactly zero traffic on this from all the different legal/2A type blogs I frequent. Just sayin...

+1,probably just another tool for "stacking" charges on person commiting other felonies at the same time. Steve

 

[Cougar]

You are correct, thankfully I have been unable to find a case of a permit holder going to prison for simply driving down the road in another state. Even though they technically could, as the ATF letter I linked to clearly states. I respect our prosecutors, and our law enforcement officers, and I feel they try to do what is just and reasonable. But remember, the "sporting purposes" clause of the Gun Control Act of 1968... which allows ATF to restrict import of "assault weapons" sat idle on the books for over 20 years before George H.W. Bush ordered that it be used. Just because something is not currently being enforced doesn't mean that it can't be brought into full enforcement with the stroke of a pen.