Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

How does state to state reciprocity exist in this context? Does it mean that if State A recognizes licenses from State B, then it is not a violation of State A's law for a citizen of State B to carry in or through school zones, but it would still be a violation of federal law? That appears to be the ATF's interpretation, but ignores an argument that could be made that by extending reciprocity to citizens of another state who have CCWs, the recognizing state is "certifying" that the nonresident has met the requirements of the recognizing state's laws.
 
Last edited:
62coltnavy, the only way a state can certify someone as qualified is to issue them the license to carry. Reciprocation doesnt accomplish that because each state sets their own requirements for concealed carry.
 
62coltnavy said:
How does state to state reciprocity exist in this context? Does it mean that if State A recognizes licenses from State B, then it is not a violation of State A's law for a citizen of State B to carry in or through school zones, but it would still be a violation of federal law?
Click to expand...
That's correct. It's still a violation of federal law to carry through a school zone on reciprocity.

This isn't the ATF's "interpretation," this is clearly stated in the law: the only ticket through a GFSZ is a license issued by the state in which the school zone is located. See post #14 -- I quoted the pertinent portion of the law.
 
My point is that the basis for reciprocity grants is that the requirements of the other states meet or exceed those of the recognizing state, which generally include background checks. What purpose is served by denying people who have CCWs issued after a background check from carrying in any state that will recognize their permit? The federal law as it stands means that a person really cannot carry outside that person's home state without a license from any state in which travel is anticipated, because when it comes right down to it, the 1000' limitation makes it literally impossible to carry in any city or town without violating the law. What is the point of a 49 state ban if the CCW permit holder has passed a background check and would qualify for a license if a resident of the state granting reciprocity?
 
Your point is understood but, unfortunately, logic doesn't play a big part in legislation. Until change, the language of the law is plain.
 
How does this Federal GFSZ affect States with Constitutional Open Carry?

If OC is legal to State residents without a License or permit, are they in compliance or in violation of Federal law if they OC within 1000 feet with no permit/license?
 
The Federal GFZ law also list an exception for possession on private property.

Does this pertain to all private property within the 100 foot zone or only "Your" private property as in your home?

Would one be in violation of the 1000 foot law if caught carrying at a Convenience Store inside the 1000 foot zone as it is private property, but not their property?
 
Where I live, if you have a CWL, you can bring your concealed weapon onto school grounds if you are in line to pick up your kid from school. If you have to go IN the school, that is something different
 
FITASC said:
Where I live, if you have a CWL, you can bring your concealed weapon onto school grounds if you are in line to pick up your kid from school. If you have to go IN the school, that is something different
Click to expand...
That's state law. The GFSZ Act is federal law. If your kid attends the school, in all probability (unless you are in a permitless open carry state) you would have a permit issued by the state in which the school is located. That's an exemption under the GFSZ Act.

In an open carry state, since the exception to the GFSZ Act is a permit issued by the state in which the school is located, your state may not care if you drive onto school grounds while picking up your child, but you would be in violation of the federal law every time you drive to or from the school (as well as wheile on the school property itself).
 
I thought the state issued permit exempted you from the GFSZ law regardless of if you were inside the building or even if you had children enrolled?
 
Koda94 said:
I thought the state issued permit exempted you from the GFSZ law regardless of if you were inside the building or even if you had children enrolled?
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The way the law is written (IIRC) the "zone" extends for 1,000 feet around the school property. The definition of "School Zone" includes "in" the school, on the grounds of the school, and a zone extending 1,000 feet around the school property.

http://gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

(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.

...

18 USC § 921 Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(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.
Click to expand...
 
I did the Google on 18 USC § 921 Definitions,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

And I can't find,

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

If I was walking down the street inside the 1000 foot zone with a firearm and a "recognized" out of State permit, I would be in violation of the GFSZ Act. If I hopped off the street onto private property (not mine) would I no longer be violating the GFSZ Act?
 
steve4102 said:
If I was walking down the street inside the 1000 foot zone with a firearm and a "recognized" out of State permit, I would be in violation of the GFSZ Act. If I hopped off the street onto private property (not mine) would I no longer be violating the GFSZ Act?
Click to expand...
the way I see it NO. But I am not a lawyer...


Koda94 said:
I thought the state issued permit exempted you from the GFSZ law regardless of if you were inside the building or even if you had children enrolled?
Click to expand...
I was able to look into my own question and it is correct, the GFSZ excludes state issued license holders from anywhere in or on school property. With a state issued license you don’t even have to have any compelling interest such as attending your child’s school function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990#Exceptions


here is another random question: how does the GFSZ act affect firearms that have NOT moved in, or otherwise affected, interstate commerce.... would a legally home made firearm qualify as such?
 
So here is one to get your mind around......My local CMP Junior program is at what was the Junior High school. Has been there since the sixties.
 
Koda94 said:
I was able to look into my own question and it is correct, the GFSZ excludes state issued license holders from anywhere in or on school property. With a state issued license you don’t even have to have any compelling interest such as attending your child’s school function.
Click to expand...
I apologize, you are correct.

However, that's only an exemption from the federal GFSZ Act. The federal law doesn't and can't offer an exemption from state laws prohibiting firearms in schools (and usually on school grounds), and I don't think there's any state that doesn't have some sort of list of places you can't carry that includes schools.

Koda94 said:
here is another random question: how does the GFSZ act affect firearms that have NOT moved in, or otherwise affected, interstate commerce.... would a legally home made firearm qualify as such?
Click to expand...
My layperson's answer is that I don't want to be the test case.

Montana passed a law a year or two ago that says firearms manufactured within the state and that remain in the state are exempt from federal regulations. I'm pretty certain that nobody has tested it yet, but I believe the federal D.O.J. has said they disagree, and they'll treat Montana-made firearms the same as all others.

The catch is the concept of "in or affecting" interstate commerce. The feds have already used this to assert jurisdiction over sale and consumption of locally grown marijuana. Their contention (which I believe was upheld in court) was that by growing marijuana locally, the defendant "affected" interstate commerce by NOT making it necessary to import marijuana from another state. With logic like that, it's easy to predict that it would not be enough to just say a gun was manufactured in Montana. To get any traction at all, the iron ore would have to be mined and smelted in Montana, the ores for all the alloying components would have to be mined and smelted in Montana, and ALL parts of the firearm would have to be made and assembled entirely within Montana. If they really got a burr under their saddle, they (the feds) might even claim that the machinery used to create the parts would have to have originated entirely within Montana.

Basically, they have stretched the original intent of the interstate commerce clause beyond recognition, in order to assume federal jurisdiction over things that are none of the feds business. Sadly, the Supreme Court has allowed this erosion to take place.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top