18 USC 922 - Federal Gun Free School Zone

Hi. I'm the President of Michigan Open Carry, Inc.

In Michigan we have a "Permit to Purchase and Registration scheme" involved in buying a handgun. The NRA ILA has gotten a bill introduced and a hearing is coming up. The Bill would eliminate our Permit to Purchase/Registration scheme. While we love the idea of getting rid of Registration, we have concerns about eliminating the Permit to Purchase as it gives us a vehicle for people without a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) to avoid prosecution under 18 USC 922.


Here's my question as posed over on MGO

18 U.S.C Section 924

Here's my questions:

Can anyone find a case where someone had their nuts fried on a Stand-Alone (no other Federal, State, or Local Charges involved) charge of violating a Federal Gun Free School Zone? It doesn't have to be Michigan -- it could be anywhere, has it happened?

Constitutional Carry states -- someone walking past a school with a gun OC on their hip....

Any state where a out-of-state reciprocity motorist is just going down a road, gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, and gets popped for being in a GFSZ...has it happened?

Someone, anyone, please find me one case -- anywhere. This information has important lobbying/legislative implications...

OR...are we making a lot of noise for something that has simply never happened?

Click to expand...

Please discuss -- any insight appreciated. Note, in this case we are concerned SOLELY with "Stand-Alone" Federal Charges for 18 USC 922. Any charges under State Laws in State Courts wouldn't be relevant to our concerns in this case.

The question was asked in this thread

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...led-permit-holders-may-carry-in-schools-zones!

in which Supermoderator Mike briefly participated. Several comments suggest that 18 USC 922(q) has only been used as an enhancement to other charges. These comments have not been contradicted since.

I found this

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=514&page=549

SCOTUS No. 93-1260. Argued November 8, 1994 Decided April 26, 1995

After respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows . . . is a school zone," 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(1)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Herr Heckler Koch said:

The question was asked in this thread

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...led-permit-holders-may-carry-in-schools-zones!

in which Supermoderator Mike briefly participated. Several comments suggest that 18 USC 922(q) has only been used as an enhancement to other charges. These comments have not been contradicted since.

Click to expand...

That's my hunch. I'm trying to find a case where it was used as a stand-alone.

Thanks for your thoughts and the thread reference.

I'm curious...not being from MI: The P2P does not permit loaded carry of a firearm, correct? So how does it give an exemption for 922?

mrjam2jab said:

I'm curious...not being from MI: The P2P does not permit loaded carry of a firearm, correct? So how does it give an exemption for 922?

Click to expand...

In Michigan we can carry loaded and chambered. The P2P is a "Permit To Purchase, Possess, and Transport".

So the answer to the bolded question above is: incorrect.

TheQ said:

In Michigan we can carry loaded and chambered. The P2P is a "Permit To Purchase, Possess, and Transport".

So the answer to the bolded question above is: incorrect.

Click to expand...

Come on now Q...
He's not from MI.

Our P2P is as stated, a permit to purchase, possess and transport. HOWEVER we do have VERY strict laws about a loaded gun in a vehicle. So, while you may transport for any legal reason, if you do not have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) you MUST have the gun unloaded, cased, and in the trunk if the vehicle has one.

I'm disappointed. I didn't sense any sarcasm in your post. I didn't know you posted here....

TheQ said:

In Michigan we can carry loaded and chambered. The P2P is a "Permit To Purchase, Possess, and Transport".

So the answer to the bolded question above is: incorrect.

Click to expand...

It is License to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol.

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422

TheQ said:

While we love the idea of getting rid of Registration, we have concerns about eliminating the Permit to Purchase as it gives us a vehicle for people without a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) to avoid prosecution under 18 USC 922.

Please discuss -- any insight appreciated. Note, in this case we are concerned SOLELY with "Stand-Alone" Federal Charges for 18 USC 922. Any charges under State Laws in State Courts wouldn't be relevant to our concerns in this case.

Click to expand...

I have never heard of a law-abiding citizen without a CPL being charged with 18 USC 922 alone. It's really not something I think about here in Idaho, and most OC'ers I know around here don't think it's that big of a deal, either.

I will say, though, that I wouldn't want to make a habit of OC'ing without a permission slip inside a school zone that was near a federal building. We have a U.S. District Court here in Boise, along with some other fedgov offices, and I wouldn't be surprised if an a-hole fed. agent (sorry for the oxymoron), who didn't like OC and was aware of the law, decided to make an example of some unfortunate soul. This may be more of a concern for those who live in state capitals or other cities with a concentration of fed. offices.

TheQ said:

I'm disappointed. I didn't sense any sarcasm in your post. I didn't know you posted here....

Click to expand...

I don't post a lot here and there wasn't any sarcasm in that one. I'll try to do better next time.

I really don't think that anyone wants to try charge anyone under 922, except as an enhancement...Why, It will get overturned just like the original version did. The powers that be do not want it tested in court. As shown in the appeal earlier quoted in this thread.

It just isn't a law...but it needs to go through the system to be declaired such, but they don't want it tested,

IMHO: A license to purchase is in direct violation of the 2A. "If you license a right, it is no longer a right, but a privilage"...that is from some court ruling, can't remember which one. We either have a Right to bear arms, or we have the privilage to bear arms. The 2A and Article 1 section 24 of teh WA constitutions say it is a right....so did the Supreme court in Heller and McDonald.

Have you found any examples of this yuet and what is MOC's stand going to be on this bill?

This question was posed on Cal Guns forum one time and someone posted all the convictions under this law since it was re-written. If i remember correctly there were about 12 convictions since 95-96 and they were ALL in addition to numerous other major felonies.

The most interesting thing though was that out of the 12 cases about 9 of them were from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and I think Guam had a case. Very very unusual.

Ca Patriot said:

This question was posed on Cal Guns forum one time and someone posted all the convictions under this law since it was re-written. If i remember correctly there were about 12 convictions since 95-96 and they were ALL in addition to numerous other major felonies.

The most interesting thing though was that out of the 12 cases about 9 of them were from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and I think Guam had a case. Very very unusual.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with such laws, they get tried out on criminals first to set the precedent, but are not needed for the criminals as there were already other simultaneous convictions.

As much as I absolutely loathe the GFSZA on basic principles, I recently gained some greater incite as to why it was enacted: To curb armed drug trafficking near schools. It was for this specific reason it includes the exemption for state-issued CCW-holders within the 1,000' zone, namely, so they could still legally carry and walk their kids to and from school.

I still believe the best way to protect our kids is to arm all law-abiding citizens. We'd then outnumber the criminals 20:1.

since9 said:

I recently gained some greater incite as to why it was enacted: To curb armed drug trafficking near schools.

Click to expand...

Really? So simple drug trafficking is not curbed?

Ca Patriot said:

This question was posed on Cal Guns forum one time and someone posted all the convictions under this law since it was re-written. If i remember correctly there were about 12 convictions since 95-96 and they were ALL in addition to numerous other major felonies.

The most interesting thing though was that out of the 12 cases about 9 of them were from Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and I think Guam had a case. Very very unusual.

Click to expand...

Once you start reading federal laws you start learning that most of the time when the law says "state" or "states" it is not referring to any of the 50 states but rather the federal territories and DC AKA the 'federal states.'

So that there were any convictions in the 50 states is what is surprising to me.

since9 said:

As much as I absolutely loathe the GFSZA on basic principles, I recently gained some greater incite as to why it was enacted: To curb armed drug trafficking near schools. It was for this specific reason it includes the exemption for state-issued CCW-holders within the 1,000' zone, namely, so they could still legally carry and walk their kids to and from school.

I still believe the best way to protect our kids is to arm all law-abiding citizens. We'd then outnumber the criminals 20:1.

Click to expand...

That is called an excuse. If it is really about drug trafficing then such a law can be done by each state. And already drugs are illegal. Just arrest the people with drugs and those actively threatening or molesting others.

For crying out loud this argument is MOOT!
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/921
(2) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" includes commerce
between any place in a State and any place outside of that State,
or within any possession of the United States (not including the
Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not
include commerce between places within the same State but through
any place outside of that State. The term "State" includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the
possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).


It DOES NOT include the states of the union or the 50 states of the union.
All these arguments in this thread/forum about this law are baseless unless you live in a 'federal state' and not one of the 50 states.

So? What if the meaning is plain but the context is confusing?

Other rules will help.

For example, according to the rule of "ejusdem generis" (simply Latin for "of the same type"), judges are required to interpret general terms at the end of specific lists as including only things of the same type as those specifically mentioned in the list. If a statute (or contract or any legal document of any kind) lists "oranges, grapefruit, lemons, and other fruit", the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the phrase "other fruit" to mean other citrus fruit. Apples and pears are not included. The courts may assume lawmakers intended by "other fruit" all the many types of citrus: kumquats, limes, tangelos, etc. When lawmakers list items of similar kind, then say "and other" (or similar words), the doctrine of ejusdem generis limits the word "other" to include only items of the same type.

The only things listed in that statute are things of FEDERAL TERRITORIES. No more no less.
So let's end this fear mongering and pointless speculation.
If you can read the law then you can defend against any such charge in court.

Daylen said:

That is called an excuse. If it is really about drug trafficing then such a law can be done by each state. And already drugs are illegal. Just arrest the people with drugs and those actively threatening or molesting others.

Click to expand...

You're correct. I said I gained some insight as to why the law was proposed and passed. I did not say I gained any sort of appreciation or respect for it.