Gun-Free zones after Heller?

H

highflyer

Inactive
Just curious...what effect, if any, can we expect from an upheld Heller decision on the "Gun-Free Zones" situation? Not just schools but workplaces, etc. Seems to me, that a case for the right to self-defense can be made in these cases. I understand Heller may be specific only to guns in private homes, but for example, is there an opening here for grounds against GFZ's in CCW states?
 
As I see it. The court is only going to address the Keep part of the 2nd. Assuming that the court applies strict scrutiny to that part it would be logical to apply it to the bare part. You must understand this is lawyer stuff and you can't do that. You would need to get another case all the way up to the supreme court and win. Logic has nothing to do with it. The law is what the courts say it is and until you can get the courts to change it it stays the same.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn last light. Yada, Yada, Yada.




Just curious...what effect, if any, can we expect from an upheld Heller decision on the "Gun-Free Zones" situation? Not just schools but workplaces, etc. Seems to me, that a case for the right to self-defense can be made in these cases. I understand Heller may be specific only to guns in private homes, but for example, is there an opening here for grounds against GFZ's in CCW states?
highflyer is online now Report Post
Click to expand...
 
Understood, but my question (re-phrased) is....

Assuming Heller is upheld (gun ban is considered against individual right to keep), is one in a better position to claim 2nd amendment rights make the case that GFZ's are unconstitutional?

Of course it would need to get to SCOTUS, but how differently would this claim be received in a gun-friendly state court before and after an upheld Heller? I think Heller would be supportive.
 
Schools would probably fall under "reasonable restrictions" until way down the road of court cases.

Workplaces are a different matter. Don't expect your self defense rights to trump property rights for a long time, if ever.
 
Hypothetical: Let's force the issue

Say a deranged sociology graduate student forces his way into a college lecture hall in one of two states in the union that bans any CCW (like Illinois) and opens up on a the classroom full of students. Instead of the expected deadly mayhem, a rebel-in-arms undergraduate in the class pulls out his concealed handgun (totally against the college's GFZ policy and the state's non-CCW laws) and quickly neutralizes the under-medicated grad student thereby ending the episode with little loss of life.

Question: What are the chances this student:

1) goes to jail
2) gets a slap on the wrist
3) gets a medal
4) receives a lifetime NRA membership
5) gets expelled and serves as a test-case against GFZ's

I for one expect more students to be carrying in class and would not be surprised to see a test case sometime soon...
 
I would expect that student to get; the prompt congratulations from the other students that he rightly deserves, scrutiny by the legal system as to his legal rights to have the gun in that location and appropriate charges filed, his contribution to our collective safety completely ignored as an aberration by the media, quickly sanctioned (and perhaps expelled) by the administrators of said University.

I don't expect even a favorable result of Heller to change any of that. Heller will apply to Washington DC. Any positive subsequent result of the Heller decision in the states will have to be fought for in a Court of Law.

You would have to convince me how any Heller decision will apply in the case of JOE BLOW v University in Your State by providing the argument.
 
I'm sorry, I gotta say it: to "bare" arms means to either roll up your sleeves, or strip the finish off a blue piece.

Sigh.

Seriously now: the way the 2nd is crafted, it's dead clear to me that the court can't find an individual right to keep arms without also finding a right to bear them.

Follow?

If that's the case, in a Heller win we get a constitutional right to *open* carry, which is exactly what the Ohio Supreme Court and many others have read into state-level RKBA constitutional clauses that are similar to the 2A.

Which means we immediately get open-carry rights in DC, and possibly in some other Federal jurisdictions. National forests? Maybe. Military bases? No way. Post offices? Maybe.

If we did open-carry marches in DC demanding CCW permits, we'd get it.

The next question involves incorporation against the states. And again, if we get open-carry via another decision forcing the states to honor the 2A, well...I guarantee you, open-carry marches would fix the California CCW mess. It would probably work everywhere except maybe Hawaii with the most battered gun culture in the nation.
 
WildWickardAlaska said:
What gun free zones are you referring to?
Click to expand...

922
(q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
(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—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(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;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
(3)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top