Anyone remember the Montana man who was displaying a firearm near a school? Montana law did not exempt him from federal law.

[JohnKSa]

Staying silent on issues results in those issues never getting challenged and overturned.

NOTHING has been overturned. That's the problem. It's still just as illegal as it ever was.

States are now challenging numerous things.

Eliminating crimes at the state level can not legalize things that are federal crimes. These laws don't create any sort of a "challenge". MAYBE, if some person violates one of these federal laws, they MIGHT get their case elevated after conviction, all the way to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court MIGHT agree to hear the case and MIGHT overturn the law. Then the person wouldn't have to go to jail and the law would be changed. But that overturning wouldn't be based on the fact that their State has "legalized" the activity in question, it would be because the federal law was unconstitutional. In other words, the State law wouldn't be the deciding factor in the federal law being overturned, even in a case like that.

In other words, these State laws do not actually create any sort of a "challenge" to federal law.

Historically speaking, gun free zones weren't a thing.

I haven't done a study of the topic, but I believe that is correct.

 

[dogtown tom]

Historically speaking, gun free zones weren't a thing.

Yet the Court cited examples in US vs Metcalf.
Read pages 12-21.

 

[CoalCrackerAl]

To get the one local gun club. You must drive by the school. I wonder how the 1000 feet rule works in that case?

 

[Miami_JBT]

Yet the Court cited examples in US vs Metcalf.
Read pages 12-21.

The court cited examples that don't fit with the GFSZA. Historically speaking, gun free zones weren't really a thing. The majority of what it cites are bans on carrying arms for a very specific time period near polling places and colleges banning students or schools banning them from inside their buildings. But not full-out gun free zones are EVERYONE.

Hell, federal buildings didn't ban guns until the 1960s.

 

[Miami_JBT]

NOTHING has been overturned. That's the problem. It's still just as illegal as it ever was.

Eliminating crimes at the state level can not legalize things that are federal crimes. These laws don't create any sort of a "challenge". MAYBE, if some person violates one of these federal laws, they MIGHT get their case elevated after conviction, all the way to the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court MIGHT agree to hear the case and MIGHT overturn the law. Then the person wouldn't have to go to jail and the law would be changed. But that overturning wouldn't be based on the fact that their State has "legalized" the activity in question, it would be because the federal law was unconstitutional. In other words, the State law wouldn't be the deciding factor in the federal law being overturned, even in a case like that.

In other words, these State laws do not actually create any sort of a "challenge" to federal law.

I haven't done a study of the topic, but I believe that is correct.

States are challenging federal law due to state laws being passed. Even FL's former Democrat Agriculture Commissioner (agency handles CCW permits), Nikki Fried was suing the feds over their ban on gun possession due to marijuana. When the current Republican won the office, Wilton Simpson, he dropped the lawsuit because he thinks gun control is okay.

The reason why the lawsuit was started was because FL legalized medical marijuana on the state level and folks getting a medical marijuana card were being denied during the background. Mind you, simply getting a medical marijuana card doesn't mean you're in possession of the devil's lettuce or consuming it. Same as simply having a CCW permit doesn't mean you actually own or possess a firearm.

 

[dogtown tom]

States are challenging federal law due to state laws being passed.

By "challenging" do you mean filing suit? Because the two are not synonymous.
Texas filed suit against the feds over the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act and was dismissed for lack of standing. My legal training is having watched a lot of Law & Order.....so even I knew that was going to happen.

Even FL's former Democrat Agriculture Commissioner (agency handles CCW permits), Nikki Fried was suing the feds over their ban on gun possession due to marijuana. When the current Republican won the office, Wilton Simpson, he dropped the lawsuit because he thinks gun control is okay.

And?
States complain about federal laws all the time. Complaints or "challenging" means diddly squat. Winning a lawsuit does.

The reason why the lawsuit was started was because FL legalized medical marijuana on the state level and folks getting a medical marijuana card were being denied during the background. Mind you, simply getting a medical marijuana card doesn't mean you're in possession of the devil's lettuce or consuming it. Same as simply having a CCW permit doesn't mean you actually own or possess a firearm.

The person denied the firearm needs to file the lawsuit, not the state.

 

[Howland937]

Not sure why people intentionally bring that kind of attention to themselves, but Federal gun charges don't seem to be sticking like they used to.

Regarding felons possessing guns

Chicago judge rules statute barring felons from having guns unconstitutional under Bruen decision

A Chicago judge recently ruled, in the case of a felon convicted multiple times, that the statute barring felons from possessing handguns is unconstitutional.

abc7chicago.com

Regarding drug users possessing guns https://www.forbes.com/sites/darios...be-barred-from-owing-firearms-us-court-rules/

And this one that was discussed recently, regarding the Post Office. https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...on-firearms-in-post-offices-unconstitutional/

Still a dumb move though. Rule #1 in gambling. Don't wager more than you can afford to lose.

 

[JohnKSa]

States are challenging federal law due to state laws being passed. Even FL's former Democrat Agriculture Commissioner (agency handles CCW permits), Nikki Fried was suing the feds over their ban on gun possession due to marijuana. When the current Republican won the office, Wilton Simpson, he dropped the lawsuit because he thinks gun control is okay.

The only way these laws might create actual challenges is by misleading citizens into thinking they are doing something legal when they are not. Once arrested and charged in federal court, those citizens would have standing to challenge the laws with appeals. The problem is that their state laws don't create any sort of obligation or precedent that might convince a federal court that the federal laws don't apply or should be struck down. So even if they do create challenges they don't actually change the legal landscape in any way that makes the challenges any more likely to succeed than they would have been without the state "legalization" laws.

Because it still all comes down to whether the federal laws in question are constitutional and that has nothing to do with state laws.

The laws are pointless at best and at worst they are harmful to those who take them seriously.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Last August, Metcalf had been seen by numerous parents with a firearm on his property across from an elementary school. While Billings PD said he didn't violate any state law, so the feds arrested him for violating federal law.
The law being the federal Gun Free Schools Zones Act, which says possession of a firearm within 1,000ft of a school is prohibited. One of several exemptions is if the person holds a firearm permit from that state.


Metcalf admitted to leaving his property and carrying the firearm on the sidewalk, his defense being that Montana law specifically exempted every Montanan from the firearm permit requirements of the GFSZA.
The court disagreed US vs Metcalf

The intent of the GFSZA was to make it a federal crime for a drug dealer near a school who happened to be armed. Well intentioned, but terrible in execution as it makes any one of us a felon when we drive out of state and do not possess a firearm permit from that state. Reciprocity doesn't apply.

Further, Metcalf is a nutjob.

Yep, I'm only safe in Tx. When traveling out of state finding out where the schools are could be important.

 

[hoardingthemanual]

To get the one local gun club. You must drive by the school. I wonder how the 1000 feet rule works in that case?

I wonder this, too.

 

[nettlle]

Responsibility of CCW isn't plug and play. Onus is on the carrier. Not all laws make common sense. And the laws change. Ohio just legalized marijuana. I live close to a college town and I pass a head shop on the way into town. They now have a sign out in front that they have pot seeds and supplies for sale. Having or using marijuana would make me a criminal and forfeit my rights to own a gun. The states are forking off from the federal government and no good can come from that.

 

[Insignificant bill]

To get the one local gun club. You must drive by the school. I wonder how the 1000 feet rule works in that case.

Works the same. You have a carry license your legal. If you don't you aren't.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yep, I'm only safe in Tx.

You are with a handgun, anyway. Probably not with long guns. See the rest of this post.

I wonder this, too.

The gun club itself is private property so you're covered there. If you get within 1000 feet of the school on the way to/from the gun club you need to qualify for one of the two other exceptions to remain legal.

As far as your carry gun goes, if you have a qualifying permit (one issued by your state that requires LE to check you for eligibility) then you are covered. Otherwise you need to unload your carry gun and lock up the firearm.

What about long guns?

Here's the pertinent exception in the law:

...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;​

The simplest read of that law indicates that the license must be one that allows possession of the firearm in question. Unless your state issues qualifying licenses for long guns and you have one that covers the long guns in question, you would need to unload them and lock them up.

 

[Insignificant bill]

I know how to transport long guns past schools, I was talking about handguns. There is an exception in TX if the gun is locked up and unloaded in your vehicle.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I have to raise an eyebrow at this entire analysis because in our nearby town (which puts the capital P in progressive) has a nearly 50 year established gun shop located 150 feet from the edge of the local high school student parking lot. If the blissninnies had ANY mechanism to target such a business and it's patrons, this would be the location to do it.

 

[JohnKSa]

I know how to transport long guns past schools, I was talking about handguns. There is an exception in TX if the gun is locked up and unloaded in your vehicle.

Going through a GFSZ with a firearm without violating federal law--there are three ways.
Stay on private property.
OR
Unload the firearm and lock it up in a container or vehicle rack.
OR
IF you have a state issued license from the state where the GFSZ is located that applies to the firearm in question and that required LE to check you for eligibility you can go through the GFSZ on public property without unloading the firearm and locking it up.

That's it.

I have to raise an eyebrow at this entire analysis because in our nearby town (which puts the capital P in progressive) has a nearly 50 year established gun shop located 150 feet from the edge of the local high school student parking lot. If the blissninnies had ANY mechanism to target such a business and it's patrons, this would be the location to do it.

You're talking about enforcement. This is a federal law. There's not a lot of federal law enforcement devoting their time to vigorously enforcing the GFSZ. In fact, I would guess that there are actually NO federal agents actively enforcing the GFSZ. However, this case makes it clear that they can and will enforce it under the proper circumstances.

This is just one of those things you want to be aware of so you don't get yourself into trouble. If Metcalf had understood the law, he wouldn't have done what he did. And he wouldn't have called the BATF and verbally given them the information they needed to arrest him. He wouldn't be facing a federal felony and loss of his firearm rights.

Another useful response would be to lobby your state legislature to come up with ways to invalidate the GFSZ using the license exception. For example, if TX were to convert their handgun licenses to firearm licenses that explicitly allow the carry of either long guns or handguns, then anyone with a permit would be covered for any firearm they own.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I know how to transport long guns past schools, I was talking about handguns. There is an exception in TX if the gun is locked up and unloaded in your vehicle.

Going through a GFSZ with a firearm without violating federal law--there are three ways.
Stay on private property.
OR
Unload the firearm and lock it up in a container or vehicle rack.
OR
IF you have a state issued license from the state where the GFSZ is located that applies to the firearm in question and that required LE to check you for eligibility you can go through the GFSZ on public property without unloading the firearm and locking it up.

That's it.

I have to raise an eyebrow at this entire analysis because in our nearby town (which puts the capital P in progressive) has a nearly 50 year established gun shop located 150 feet from the edge of the local high school student parking lot. If the blissninnies had ANY mechanism to target such a business and it's patrons, this would be the location to do it.

You're talking about enforcement. This is a federal law. There's not a lot of federal law enforcement devoting their time to vigorously enforcing the GFSZ. In fact, I would guess that there are actually NO federal agents actively enforcing the GFSZ. However, this case makes it clear that they can and will enforce it under the proper circumstances.

This is just one of those things you want to be aware of so you don't get yourself into trouble. If Metcalf had understood the law, he wouldn't have done what he did. And he wouldn't have called the BATF and verbally given them the information they needed to arrest him. He wouldn't be facing a federal felony and loss of his firearm rights.

Another useful response would be to lobby your state legislature to come up with ways to invalidate the GFSZ using the license exception. For example, if TX were to convert their handgun licenses to firearm licenses that explicitly allow the carry of either long guns or handguns, then anyone with a permit would be covered for any firearm they own.

How would they get their FFL renewed by the ATF if they are fundamentally operating in an illegal area per GFSZ? Essentially every patron who leaves the establishment is violating the law. Heck, even the FedEx driver delivering guns to the shop is violating the law. Like I said, it's not passing the smell test.

 

[JohnKSa]

Since they are on private property (one of the three exceptions in the law), they are not operating illegally.

As far as transporting firearms through GFSZs goes, the federal law is pretty clear. You can see from the case in question that anyone who doesn't qualify for one of the three exceptions is subject to arrest and prosecution. We can be happy that there doesn't seem to be any active enforcement, but it's not a good idea to ignore the law just because we don't like the ramifications or because getting caught is unlikely.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Since they are on private property (one of the three exceptions in the law), they are not operating illegally.

As far as transporting firearms through GFSZs goes, the federal law is pretty clear. You can see from the case in question that anyone who doesn't qualify for one of the three exceptions is subject to arrest and prosecution. We can be happy that there doesn't seem to be any active enforcement, but it's not a good idea to ignore the law just because we don't like the ramifications or because getting caught is unlikely.

Just curious- Do you follow GFSZ guidance on daily basis? Research ALL travel routes to ensure compliance?

 

[JohnKSa]

Just curious- Do you follow GFSZ guidance on daily basis? Research ALL travel routes to ensure compliance?

• I have a qualifying license issued by my state, so there's no need for me to research my travel routes. Of course I follow the GFSZA.
• What I do or don't do doesn't change the law, so even if the above statement weren't true--it wouldn't change anything.
• As I've said a time or two, the important thing is knowing the law and its possible impact. If one knows the law, it shouldn't ever become an issue. Metcalf didn't know the law and look where it got him. Given the choice, it seems infinitely better to know the law than to be ignorant of it, or to pretend it doesn't exist or to pretend or believe that it says something other than what it does.
• Your post seems to be an attempt to get someone to publicly admit to violating federal law--a law that could result in 5 years in federal prison and a loss of firearm rights for life. What would motivate someone to attempt something like that?

 

[Insignificant bill]

• I have a qualifying license issued by my state, so there's no need for me to research my travel routes. Of course I follow the GFSZA.
• What I do or don't do doesn't change the law, so even if the above statement weren't true--it wouldn't change anything.
• As I've said a time or two, the important thing is knowing the law and its possible impact. If one knows the law, it shouldn't ever become an issue. Metcalf didn't know the law and look where it got him. Given the choice, it seems infinitely better to know the law than to be ignorant of it, or to pretend it doesn't exist or to pretend or believe that it says something other than what it does.
• Your post seems to be an attempt to get someone to publicly admit to violating federal law--a law that could result in 5 years in federal prison and a loss of firearm rights for life. What would motivate someone to attempt something like that?

Exactly knowing the laws is one of the most important things that a gun owner should do.

 

[.455_Hunter]

• I have a qualifying license issued by my state, so there's no need for me to research my travel routes. Of course I follow the GFSZA.

What is your "qualifying license" in TX? How does it provide coverage for long guns versus concealed handguns?

• Your post seems to be an attempt to get someone to publicly admit to violating federal law--a law that could result in 5 years in federal prison and a loss of firearm rights for life. What would motivate someone to attempt something like that?

Good grief.

 

[Kleanbore]

The laws are pointless at best and at worst they are harmful to those who take them seriously.

Yes indeed!

 

[JohnKSa]

What is your "qualifying license" in TX? How does it provide coverage for long guns versus concealed handguns?

The qualifying license in TX is just that. It is a license that qualifies under federal law as an exemption for possessing handguns in a GFSZ.

Because of the wording in the federal law and the designation of the TX license, the license does not appear to provide an exemption for possessing long guns in a GFSZ so they need to be unloaded and locked up if one plans to traverse a GFSZ with a long gun and avoid violating federal law.

Again, even if I didn't follow the GFSZ, it wouldn't change anything. What I, personally, do or don't do has no effect on federal law.

Good grief.

Yeah, I think that sums it up pretty well.

 

[dogtown tom]

I have to raise an eyebrow at this entire analysis because in our nearby town (which puts the capital P in progressive) has a nearly 50 year established gun shop located 150 feet from the edge of the local high school student parking lot. If the blissninnies had ANY mechanism to target such a business and it's patrons, this would be the location to do it.

My first FFL was issued to me when I lived within 1000ft of an elementary school.