I realize, thanks to Al Norris, that we (NRA-ILA and SAF, more accurately) are waiting for the courts to establish the individual right to self-defense outside the home before going after other issues, using a building block approach. So it follows that GFSZA won't be challenged for a while at least.
However, my question is with regard to claims I've seen, recently, that due to the wording of the Act, only permits issued from the local state allow a CCW holder to ignore the 1000 ft restriction. IE, reciprocity doesn't count, and in my case I can only get around the 1000 ft restriction in Missouri or Florida (as I hold permits from each state).
I've seen the quoted section, and can understand how it might be interpreted that way.
My question, though, is this: Has anybody actually been charged with violation of GFSZA for carrying within 1000 ft, using a reciprocal agreement permit? IE, is there any case law supporting that this will happen, or are we all just erring on the safe side and assuming that reciprocity doesn't count?
However, my question is with regard to claims I've seen, recently, that due to the wording of the Act, only permits issued from the local state allow a CCW holder to ignore the 1000 ft restriction. IE, reciprocity doesn't count, and in my case I can only get around the 1000 ft restriction in Missouri or Florida (as I hold permits from each state).
I've seen the quoted section, and can understand how it might be interpreted that way.
My question, though, is this: Has anybody actually been charged with violation of GFSZA for carrying within 1000 ft, using a reciprocal agreement permit? IE, is there any case law supporting that this will happen, or are we all just erring on the safe side and assuming that reciprocity doesn't count?