• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OC on Motorcycle - Passing by Schools

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am curious if a permit is considered the same as a license, legally, or is licensed referring to LEO and other armed security personnel? Reason I ask is, in my field of work, there is a big difference with being permitted to perform a task in the hospital as opposed to being licensed by the state. Same goes when comparing a learner's permit versus an actual driver's license. Or am I misinterpreting something? I just wonder if this clarification has been specifically ruled in a court of law? I'm asking for my own education, and not to be confrontational.

I read a law as it is written, and while not a lawyer I had years of experience with lawyers, laws, and courts, as well as being considered a expert witness. IMO the only way a permit is a license to do so is if the state law specifically states that a permit is a license to posses a firearm in a school zone. The wording allows the states to either make it legal or illegal despite the permit. And actually NC concealed carry law specifically points to federal laws as to where a permit holder can and cannot carry. I also consider the GFSZ to be unconstitutional, and counter to claims of commerce. There are already laws on the books to prosecute gang bangers committing crimes on or near school grounds. This law was nothing more than a way to intimidate gun carriers not to carry in urban environment. I think that until the law is overturned that a push should be made to put wording in the concealed carry law to allow both PP and CWP to carry in a GFSZ. Then we would actually be licensed to do so.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I am curious if a permit is considered the same as a license, legally, or is licensed referring to LEO and other armed security personnel? Reason I ask is, in my field of work, there is a big difference with being permitted to perform a task in the hospital as opposed to being licensed by the state. Same goes when comparing a learner's permit versus an actual driver's license. Or am I misinterpreting something? I just wonder if this clarification has been specifically ruled in a court of law? I'm asking for my own education, and not to be confrontational.

A simple definition of "license" is permission being granted to do something which is otherwise illegal. Feel free to research the legal definitions of license to verify.

This is why it is almost non-nonsensical to think of a "license" to carry a firearm in the United States by a person who is otherwise allowed to own and possess a firearm (ie. not a felon, underage, or mentally deficient). The 2nd Amendment already covers this, so no extra "permission" is required to carry non-concealed.
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
Then what is the difference between a learner's permit and an actual driver's license? Why not call them both permits? My belief is that permits come with more restrictions than licenses.

What I want to know is, has this ever been tested and proven in a court of law? Or has anybody gotten this verified by the attorney general? Or are we making assumptions based on our own beliefs and understanding of the law? Don't get me wrong, I'd love for it to be true, I just don't want to find out the hard way that it isn't.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Supposedly BATF has ruled that a concealed carry permit allows one to carry in a GFSZ, but I have not seen the ruling or can I actually find it in a search. Just claims that it is a out for GFSZ. Personally I just do not worry about it as I have not seen any cases of prosecution for just GFSZ alone. Now if one flaunts there gun in a effort to be a test case that would be their choice, I am not willing or wanting to go through the headache. I cover my hind end the best way I can and still carry.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
It is not a BATF ruling - it is in the federal statute

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) - Gun Free School Zones Act

.......if a person has a concealed carry permit physically issued by the state in which the school is located. Although this exception allows permit holders to legally travel armed in their home State, it does not protect them if they wish to visit other states which recognize their permit through reciprocity agreements.
http://groups.google.com/group/ncagfsza95/browse_thread/thread/9f6022cc9b399ba9
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
It is not a BATF ruling - it is in the federal statute

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) - Gun Free School Zones Act

.......if a person has a concealed carry permit physically issued by the state in which the school is located. Although this exception allows permit holders to legally travel armed in their home State, it does not protect them if they wish to visit other states which recognize their permit through reciprocity agreements.
http://groups.google.com/group/ncagfsza95/browse_thread/thread/9f6022cc9b399ba9

Grape normally I agree with you, but that link does not contain a reputable government source stating what you have quoted above, nor is that wording in the law. This is the wording of Title 18 U.S.C 922

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;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
It is not a BATF ruling - it is in the federal statute

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) - Gun Free School Zones Act

.......if a person has a concealed carry permit physically issued by the state in which the school is located. Although this exception allows permit holders to legally travel armed in their home State, it does not protect them if they wish to visit other states which recognize their permit through reciprocity agreements.
http://groups.google.com/group/ncagfsza95/browse_thread/thread/9f6022cc9b399ba9

Thank you. That is the clarification I was looking for.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Grape normally I agree with you, but that link does not contain a reputable government source stating what you have quoted above, nor is that wording in the law. This is the wording of Title 18 U.S.C 922

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;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

I hold that in this instance the words license and permit are synonymous and believe that if tested in court that would be the decision. Some states license one to carry a handgun, others issue a permit. As both a practical reasonable man approach and as a technical matter, I say the difference is the same. :D
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I hold that in this instance the words license and permit are synonymous and believe that if tested in court that would be the decision. Some states license one to carry a handgun, others issue a permit. As both a practical reasonable man approach and as a technical matter, I say the difference is the same. :D

Grape you or at least I have to question WHY the congress did not clearly say what we want to see. I would like to agree with you, but I just can't. Some states or at least one has made the license a "license to do so" and my state has refereed to all federal statutes as to where one can carry. Though again being vague and not actually pointing out the GFSZ.

Laws should NOT be vague there is no excuse, but there are reasons. I would not feel comfortable with assuming anything let alone playing with a felony. I would trust that reasoning only if it came from a reliable federal authority with the clout to back it up. But that is me, my health along with my age makes me play it a lot more safe then most people.

IMO the law says what it says and nothing more or less. I take that for what it is worth.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I think it is sufficient that the 2A allows the people to keep and bear arms, coupled with the "instant background checks" that verify the purchaser is "allowed" to purchase is enough to satisfy this poorly written law.
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
Grape normally I agree with you, but that link does not contain a reputable government source stating what you have quoted above, nor is that wording in the law. This is the wording of Title 18 U.S.C 922

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;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

Well dang, I guess I'm back as square one. :uhoh:
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Well dang, I guess I'm back as square one. :uhoh:

To be honest I do not think you need to worry, as others have said not allot of attention has been paid to this law. If you are just passing through a GFSZ I doubt there would be much concern. Now if you are OCing on a sidewalk that is adjacent to a school that could get iffy, especially if the sidewalk is maintained by the school district. Any weapon on school property could result in a felony, a friends daughter had a box cutter from her job at Walmart and they arrested her for it. How they knew it was in the car I don't know. Unless because someone saw her work smock and assumed. I used to drive past the same High School in my commercial truck every day, and everybody in Sanford, including the cops know I am always armed. I have never been stopped for it, and there always is at least one Sanford PD car in the school lot during hours.
 

McFlash

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
3
Location
NC
In NC Home Schools are exempted from the GFSZ law. NC Law (as far as I can tell) also does not touch the buffer issue with most legislation being written to ensure the use of the term "on school grounds" or other language that would indicate designation to immediate property only.
 
Last edited:

Eagle2009

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
66
Location
United States
There is a lot of great GFSZA information on the Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Association's Website

http://ok2a.org/fedgfsza


The site includes the BATFE letter that everyone is unknowingly quoting that was written to a Virginia permit holder stating that ATF reads the law to mean the permit has to be physically issued by the State that the school is located.

The website also has a letter from Oklahoma US Senator Tom Coburn stating that GFSZA can result in otherwise innocent people being arrested.

There is also an interesting quote from a Wisconsin police officer stating that it is unreasonable for a citizen to go armed in any residential area and not know that they are within 1000 feet of a school of some sort.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
In NC Home Schools are exempted from the GFSZ law. NC Law (as far as I can tell) also does not touch the buffer issue with most legislation being written to ensure the use of the term "on school grounds" or other language that would indicate designation to immediate property only.

It makes sense...although I am unable to find NC implementing a GFSZ in the NCGS. Which one are referring to?
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
NC does not implement the federal GFSZ; that's why you can't find it.

If a state isn't allowed to enforce federal immigration law, why try to enforce GFSZs?

<grin> exactly. I think the general consensus is that the GFSZ is just a federal "add-on" charge...and was never really meant to be enforced on its own since it fails rationality and Constitutionality on so MANY levels.

Home schools being one big example. :) NC normally excludes home schools, but the federal law doesn't.

I am not sure that I have seen ANY examples were states have tried to enforce the GFSZ on "normal" people...it seems to be restricted to drug dealers, etc that have really pissed off the police and they are looking to bury them under the jail.

Couple that with the fact that there is NO exemption for off-duty law enforcement in the federal law, I really don't think you are going to see this enforced on a local level anytime soon.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Never thought of that ... and what if you home schooled your own kids?

then that puts the GFSZ in conflict with the 2A being a "fundamental right" and requiring "strict scrutiny" by the government to justify it...and it is unlikely that they can provide a sufficient "compelling interest" to overcome the right to self defense in the home.

They could waffle and say that the home school administrators (us) could "allow" the weapons as part of the curriculum...but I suspect would open further reaches into Pandora's Box, eh? :)

Just my $0.02...IANAL. :)
 
Top