Federal Gun Free School Zones Act question

[MLeake]

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?

 

[Al Norris]

MLeake, I really don't know the answer to the question, as regards case law.

However, a plain reading of the text is instructive (I have underlined the pertinent exception).

§ 922(q)(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 -

(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;​

Reciprocity appears not to be a factor at all.

CA has enacted a similar law and is the only State that I know for sure that could charge you for violating a GFSZ. Otherwise, the Feds would have had to arrest you for something else, and such a charge would be an add-on charge.

I suppose that if arrested for violating some other State law, the State could dismiss their charges and hand you over for prosecution by the Feds.

 

[MLeake]

I wonder if they had intended to disable reciprocity when they passed the law. It may simply have been an oversight.

In any case, since I live in an area where I could easily drive into four other states (KS, NE, IA, OK) within a couple hours' drive time, and have reciprocity with each of those states, I wonder if I'd be a good future plaintiff for SAF. Do I need to get arrested, in order to have standing, or do I merely need to be impacted?

Note: I am NOT volunteering to get arrested. I am simply expressing willingness to sign as a complainant when SAF gets around to this one.

 

[fasteddie565]

I live near KCMO. I will bail you out.