Unlicensed OC within 1,000ft of a school?

[EMNofSeattle]

I'll go through it, but from what you have posted it has absolutely nothing to do with GFSZA, it has to do with a felon in possession. Tell please I will not waste my time by researching this ruling, and you are being honest? If not own up to it now, because I will use it over you forever if not truthful.

Awwww YOU did leave out information, the fact that Tait's gun rights had been restored. If Michigan law allows a permit as a license to do so then it would make sense that those charges were dismissed. In NC a permit is NOT a license to do so, and it is spelled out. That all places prohibited by federal law are prohibited by state law. Even if it is not a federal felony, state can charge a misdemeanor and seize the permit. The fact is it is not done, probably because most police have never read the laws.

But you're arguing the permit must specifically authorize you to carry in a school, find one prosecution or case where that was an issue... My case states that state law is all that matters....

bring up a case backing up your assertion...

 

[WalkingWolf]

But you're arguing the permit must specifically authorize you to carry in a school, find one prosecution or case where that was an issue... My case states that state law is all that matters....

bring up a case backing up your assertion...

I am stating EXACTLY what the wording of the law states, you have given ONE ruling specific to one circuit. The post you quoted of mine was my opinion of a change in THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Now do you have anything else that says the federal statute(GFSZA) does not say what it says? There are other rulings in circuit courts that uphold the current GFSZA, and there is no indication that a liberal court would not uphold the law. So IMO, you are full of the brown stuff.

Keep in mind that in that particular ruling the circuit court completely avoided the constitutionality of the law. IOW they took a path that would most likely not take it to SCOTUS. That circuit consists of conservative states, and current decisions made on 2A by SCOTUS have been split but favoring 2A. If the court was leaning the other direction there is no doubt in my opinion that the feds would have taken it all the way.

 

[joanie]

If you live in a state that allows OC without a license, say MI for example, is it lawful to OC within 1,000ft of a school? I've heard many people say federal law prohibits it.


Depends on your definition of lawful. Yeah, they probibly have a law against it. Theres not much one can do these days thats not against someone's law.


I can't find any solid answers regarding this, so maybe you guys could help.

Theres a school near me that has the sign, it says 5,000ft. Thats the best I can tell you on the subject



I'm asking because I live in a nice little subdivision with a school about 300ft from my door. I don't have a CPL - is it illegal for me to OC around my neighborhood while I'm out for a walk?

300ft? wow, you can't carry on your own property can you? That somehow don't seem right. I'm sorry, it just seems silly, I mean what are they gonna do?, start measuring the distance between where you wank and the school? Is it the school building, or the school grounds? Do most police even know where the school property ends? Are they gonna make you stand still while they measure, or call someone else to measure while they hold you there? It just seems silly is all.

 

[joanie]

"wank" lol, I meant walk.

 

[eye95]

Folks, read the law. Do NOT take the word of other posters here!

The ignorance of one of the responses here astounds me. You may carry on your own private property if it is within 1000 ft of a school. The law has a specific exception for that.

To try to answer your question: As the law is worded, yes, you would need a CPL to carry while walking around in your neighborhood. I cannot speak to case law that may alter the explicit wording of the law.

If anyone tries to tell you what the law says on the matter, make sure they cite it or quote it. Too much mythology about the law being spouted here. It's worse than an unlawful stop with a LEO!

(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; [A woman was convicted under this law for having a firearm in her assigned public housing.]
(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.

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.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(26) the term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

If you live in a state that allows OC without a license, say MI for example, is it lawful to OC within 1,000ft of a school? I've heard many people say federal law prohibits it.


Depends on your definition of lawful. Yeah, they probibly have a law against it. Theres not much one can do these days thats not against someone's law.


I can't find any solid answers regarding this, so maybe you guys could help.

Theres a school near me that has the sign, it says 5,000ft. Thats the best I can tell you on the subject



I'm asking because I live in a nice little subdivision with a school about 300ft from my door. I don't have a CPL - is it illegal for me to OC around my neighborhood while I'm out for a walk?

300ft? wow, you can't carry on your own property can you? That somehow don't seem right. I'm sorry, it just seems silly, I mean what are they gonna do?, start measuring the distance between where you wank and the school? Is it the school building, or the school grounds? Do most police even know where the school property ends? Are they gonna make you stand still while they measure, or call someone else to measure while they hold you there? It just seems silly is all.

Yes.

From my previous Post #16:

When you obtained a License To Purchase (LTP, MCL 28.422), to purchase a handgun, the verification by a law enforcement authority to determine if you qualify for the license (LTP) is what exempts you from the FGFSZ's.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

Michigan requires registration of all handguns regardless if you have a license to carry or not.

Also, in Michigan, MCL 750.237a, exempts an individual from this state or another state licensed to carry a concealed weapon, to carry at/in schools (K-12). However, MCL 28.425o, prohibits licensed (CPL) individuals in Michigan to carry concealed pistols at/in schools (K-12) unless you meet one or more of the exemptions enumerated in 28.425o.

ETA: If you have a CPL, school parking lots are exempt for carrying concealed.

 

[eye95]

Why would you say "Yes" to a post that has some blatant falsehoods in it? You probably should have quoted the portion to which you were saying yes (and leave out the drivel).

Folks, read the law. Do not take anyone's word for what the law says, not mine, and certainly not the above quoted poster who, clearly without having read the actual law, made the silly and incorrect assumption that the questioner could not carry on his land, but implied that he should just go ahead and violate the law.

A copy of the text of the law is quoted a few posts up.

I am not going to post a conclusion in general about that quoted poster, but I encourage you to read a lot of what she writes and then make up your own minds on her rationality.