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

[mons meg]

Until somebody actually gets arrested for this, (by whom? Federal Marshals??) e.g. driving through a Texas school zone on an OK permit, nobody will have standing in Federal court to challenge the Act as unconstitutional (just like the first GFSZA was tossed by the SCOTUS). The fact that thousands upon thousands of citizens are committing this theoretical crime daily without any repercussions leads me to believe that US Attorneys aren't going to go there, knowing that they will end up on the wrong end of Justice Scalia.

 

[Skiluvr03]

Personally, I'm not going to worry about the old Federal law that was quoted. It says in Oklahoma Law that a CCW holder can carry a weapon onto school property while dropping a student off on school grounds, so I'm feeling confident that merely driving down a public road in a school zone in other states is safe from the federal law. I'm going to be careful of reading a post of some old law, which has been superceded in some places and assume that it is valid everywhere today. We have laws in Oklahoma that you can spit on sidewalks, or tie your horse up in a certain spot, and I don't see anybody getting arrested for those old laws because they have never been "taken off the books".

 

[Cougar]

It says in Oklahoma Law that a CCW holder can carry a weapon onto school property while dropping a student off on school grounds, so I'm feeling confident that merely driving down a public road in a school zone in other states is safe from the federal law.

I will mention that an armed citizen who drives onto school property while dropping off a student in Oklahoma is exempt from the federal law assuming they have a carry permit issued by the State of Oklahoma. Therefore no violation of federal law occurs in this instance. On the other hand, this same person is committing multiple federal felonies driving down the interstate in Dallas. I will also mention that it is not possible for the law of any State to supersede federal law.

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

This is the kind of charge that they stack on thugs for other crimes.

FYI, the US Marshals can arrest you for violation as can BATF. All they need is a credible witness which allows them a probable cause affidavit to present to a federal judge or magistrate for an arrest warrant. A local police officer is usually considered to be a credible witness--who also has the power to arrest your movement from place to place until a warrant can be obtained.

As should be obvious by recent happenings in Florida & elsewhere, our rights are coming under attack. The Left is mounting an offensive. It's time to wake up and support the NRA, GOA, Committee For The Right To Keep & Bear Arms, The Second Amendment Foundation with you membership dues and donations. The war will never end. Be eternally vigilant or accept your fate.

 

[mons meg]

This is the kind of charge that they stack on thugs for other crimes..

the reason for this is the last time the GFSZA was brought before the courts, it got tossed by the SCOTUS. COngress then passed another, almost identical one. I would think that if a regular citizen was charged under this, say an OK resident traveling in TX, it would be a slam dunk to toss the "new" GFSZA as well.

 

[Cougar]

the reason for this is the last time the GFSZA was brought before the courts, it got tossed by the SCOTUS. COngress then passed another, almost identical one. I would think that if a regular citizen was charged under this, say an OK resident traveling in TX, it would be a slam dunk to toss the "new" GFSZA as well.

This is unfortunately not the case. The reason the first law was thrown out is because Congress literally forgot to include the "interstate commerce hook" that they use in all federal laws. If the SCOTUS struck down the new law, which contains the necessary "hook," they would also have to strike 99% of the other federal laws on the books.

See United States v Dorsey

 

[jwv]

the reason for this is the last time the GFSZA was brought before the courts, it got tossed by the SCOTUS. COngress then passed another, almost identical one. I would think that if a regular citizen was charged under this, say an OK resident traveling in TX, it would be a slam dunk to toss the "new" GFSZA as well.

Isn't it just something that COULD be used against a citizen?

 

[Crosstimbers Okie]

Sure it could. As a matter of law. As a matter of politics it probably wouldn't be the most prudent move. And politics is what it all really boils down to.

Support your organizations.