Out of State Gun Free School Zone

[thatguyoverthere]

Ok, brand new 62 year old new guy here. Experienced shooter, but no CHL yet (in work- had the class, do my qual next week, started the application process with DPS). New to this forum. Here with a specific question. Not sure if this is the right section to post it in, but figured I'd start here.

One of the reasons for wanting to finally get my CHL is that my wife and I do a lot of road travel to other states, either by car or by motorcycle. I figure I'm getting too old to take a beat down, and I'm to fat to run away, so CHL, here I come (kidding, guys! This is serious business, I know.)

My question is about the federal Gun Free School Zone law. I understand that I will be exempt from that in Texas once I get my CHL, but looks to me like it's pretty clear that that exemption is NOT available to me when I travel to other states. That being the case, I would say it would be almost impossible to not come within 1000 feet of school property at some point when I'm travelling out of state.

So my question is: what do you guys do when travelling to another state and you want to carry? Seems like most folks I've already talked to just disregard that little rule and hope for the best. As of right now, I'm not too keen on that idea. I'm not willing to gamble 5 years of my life on not getting stopped for something or other! But seriously, what do you do (or what would you do) in regards to the 1000 foot school zone rule while travelling out of state? Just looking for opinions & ideas.

Sorry this is so long. I get wordy sometimes. Thanks for your help.

[jmra]

This is typically an add on charge for major offenses and typically not something an officer pulling you over for speeding in a school zone is going to arrest you for. It would be a charge added by a DA for a guy caught selling drugs to kids on school property carrying a handgun or a student illegally in possession of a firearm at school. Assuming you don't have a reason to be on school property when out of town and you aren't dealing drugs to kids you simply don't have much to worry about.

The original law was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. "Congress responded in 1996 by approving a slightly revised version of the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the form of amendments to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1997. The amendments required prosecutors to prove an impact on interstate commerce as an element of the offense."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-1838600010.html

Not sure how you have impacted interstate commerce when you get pulled over for speeding in a school zone.

[Jumping Frog]

Although concern is technically accurate, I would also like to put this into context as an otherwise law-abiding citizen is literally more likely to be struck by lightning. I carried here on my UT and PA non-resident licenses when I relocated to Texas until I got my Texas CHL, and the GFSZ issue is not something I spent any energy worrying about.

This may possibly be the most common federal felony that is completely ignored.

Years ago, I read a study that showed 90% of all urban and suburban land area in this country is within 1000 feet of a school. This law is totally ignored by literally millions of people each and every day. I could not drive from one side of Houston to the other without passing within 1000 feet of literally dozens of schools. Every unlicensed person driving with a loaded gun in their car pursuant to the Texas Motorist Protection Act is technically violating this federal statute millions of times per day in every city in Texas.

Yet virtually no one is ever arrested for this. The only exception seems to be if the DEA is arresting a drug dealer and the arrest happens to be within 1000 feet of a school, this could be an "add-on" charge for someone who is already facing federal (not local) felony charges.

I have been following this issue within the "gun culture" for 15 years now and cannot think of a single case off the top of my head where an otherwise normal law-abiding citizen was actually arrested for this. And believe me, it would have made the news and it would have hit all the regular gun blogs and forums.

One other point to consider is local and county law enforcement generally do not arrest people for federal crimes, they arrest people under state law. How often do we see the FBI or the DEA making traffic stops or sitting in school parking lots perusing the peaceful and law-abiding parents dropping their children off to school? Also note that this isn't a case where you can have the local Barney Fife charge you with the GFSZ and haul you into the local mayor's court. These charges would need to be prosecuted by the local Office of the U.S. Attorney in federal court.

Heck, remember the hubbub about thousands and thousands of felons failing NICS checks and it turns out less than a dozen were ever prosecuted? People can make their own decisions, but I have traveled through many states while armed and completely do not worry about federal GFSZ. For example, the last long road trip I took was about 1300 miles through 5 other states. I guarantee there were dozens, if not hundreds, of schools that I passed within 1000 feet of the interstates I traveled.

Now, if you are driving in New Jersey, California, Maryland, New York, or Massachusetts, then all bets are off. My remarks are limited to driving within the United States, not those fascist totalitarian heck-holes.

[R DAVIS]

Years ago, I read a study that showed 90% of all urban and suburban land area in this country is within 1000 feet of a school.

Respectfully, - Total Baloney.
Stop and think about it for a minute.

[TVGuy]

Years ago, I read a study that showed 90% of all urban and suburban land area in this country is within 1000 feet of a school.

Respectfully, - Total Baloney.
Stop and think about it for a minute.

I don't doubt that for a minute, or at least that it's fairly close to accurate. What makes you think it isn't? Probably closer to 75%, but that doesn't change the problem.

[TVGuy]

San Francisco as an example.

[thatguyoverthere]

Thanks guys, for the responses and good information. I really do appreciate you taking the time and trouble to counsel me. What you've said is pretty much what I've heard from others: basically, don't sweat it.

Bottom line is, I just don't know if I can do that. Mainly because, the way I read scripture, it says I gotta obey man's law unless it contradicts God's law. I was hoping I had misread the GFSZ law or missed something in it. But it appears that's not the case.

I did write to my US representative and senators regarding this problem (for what that's worth). As you know, Senator Cornyn is sponsoring a federal reciprocity bill. Let me share part of his reply to me here: "I support allowing law-abiding Texans with Concealed Handgun Licenses to protect themselves and their families while traveling through other states. As a result, I was proud to introduce the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (S.498) on February 12, 2015. This legislation would treat state issued concealed carry permits like drivers' licenses, allowing law-abiding citizens with concealed carry privileges in their home state to conceal-carry in any other state that also permits the practice. Furthermore, this legislation would safeguard the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense and recreational purposes."

Granted, I'm reading very optimistically, but the good Senator from Texas seems to be implying that his law would nullify the GFSC rules for licensed persons. Unfortunately, I can't find an on-line source to see the actual bill. It appears that it is not published until it is officially introduced on the floor. As of right now, it's in committee. But the good news is that we have a guy on our side, with a bill with a number of co-sponsors that would be very beneficial. The bad news is that, overall, only approximately 3% of bills introduced in the last congressional session actually became law.

So for me, I think I'm on hold for this issue right now. But for everyone else, I would encourage you to contact your US rep & senators and tell them that you support S.498, and mention the problems for out of state license holders in regards to the GFSZ law.

Thanks again for your thoughts and insights.

[C-dub]

Thanks guys, for the responses and good information. I really do appreciate you taking the time and trouble to counsel me. What you've said is pretty much what I've heard from others: basically, don't sweat it.

True, it's not likely to be an issue, but that doesn't mean to be complacent about it either. Going about your travels you may not even be aware that you are within 1000 feet of a school, so do your best to not give anyone a reason to pull you over.

And welcome to the forum!

[ELB]

...Not sure how you have impacted interstate commerce when you get pulled over for speeding in a school zone.

The "interstate commerce" portion applies to the gun, not to the activity for which the police have stopped you.

USC 922q2a: "It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce..."

Realistically, as others have noted, the chances of having to deal with this are small. I have done a small amount of googling on this in the past, and again as others have pointed out, this law is generally used when some other federal crime is being prosecuted, usually drugs.

There was one case where the feds went after a guy solely for gun possession in a school zone, and he beat the feds at both trial and appeal, because he had a concealed handgun license from the state in which the school zone was located, and he was legally eligible to possess a firearm.

Also more states are passing laws directing their state police officers to not enforce federal gun laws, so getting stopped by the locals for a traffic ticket is even less of a problem.

[C-dub]

I thought it had been struck down saying that it had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Supreme Court held that the GFSZA exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The section in question is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court’s cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

[jmra]

I thought it had been struck down saying that it had nothing to do with interstate commerce.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/united-states-lopez.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Supreme Court held that the GFSZA exceeded Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The section in question is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court’s cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

From my earlier post:
"The original law was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. "Congress responded in 1996 by approving a slightly revised version of the Gun-Free School Zones Act in the form of amendments to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1997. The amendments required prosecutors to prove an impact on interstate commerce as an element of the offense."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-1838600010.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[thatguyoverthere]

Yes, I'm still beating this dead horse, trying to get just one more mile out of her, but hear me out, please...

I finally got a chance to look over the text of Senator Cornyn's reciprocity bill S.498. It appears to me that, if passed, this law would nullify the out of state 1,000 feet school keep out zone as required by the GFSZ law. Here's the relevant text of Cornyn's bill:

"The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so."

I think I can boil that down and keep the original meaning if I just cut out some extra words and end up with this: "carrying a concealed handgun in a [different] State shall be subject to the same conditions that apply to carrying a concealed handgun by residents of the [home] State who are licensed by the [home] State to do so."

If my condensing is accurate, that sounds to me that if this bill were to actually become law, that I could travel to another state that has a reciprocal concealed carry agreement with Texas, and I would NOT be subject to the 1,000 feet school keep out zone in that other state because I am exempt from that requirement in my home state that issued my CHL.

This would be great news for us because then we could leave our home state and actually drive down the road freely and not have to break Federal law every time we passed by some school house in another state.

Cornyn put forth this same proposal as an amendment to another bill in the last congressional session. It received a majority roll call vote of 57-43, but it did not meet the required 2/3 majority. That was last session, which was before the last election when a number of seats changed parties, and he was trying to attach it to a bill being proposed by Harry Reid, of all people.

I think there is a good chance of actually getting this bill passed this year. So please, contact your senators and congressman and tell them to work to pass this "common sense" (I like it when I get to use "their" favorite phrase) measure (Senator Cornyn's reciprocity bill S.498).

Why do I care so much about this GFSZ law that pretty much everyone ignores? I even spoke to an on-duty BATF agent today about the GFSZ law today. Do you know what he told me? The same thing everybody else says: "Don't worry about it. Nobody enforces it. We only use it to enhance charges against somebody we really want to go after." That's great, but there's just something wrong when we openly ignore and blatantly disregard the law of the land, and are even encouraged to do so by the very people who are supposed to be enforcing the law! That's just crazy to me. If it's not right, let's don't ignore it, let's FIX IT!

Ok, I'm stepping down off the soap box now. Sorry for the rant. Thanks for indulging me. But really, let's do what we can to make this right. Maybe it won't happen, but we don't know until we try! (Gee, I've gone from the soap box and now I've arrived at the "give it the ol' college try" routine. I feel like Flo in the new Progressive commercial (which is pretty funny, actually).

OK I'm done for real now!

[C-dub]

I don't think it is so much that it is blatantly ignored as much as a problem of how to enforce it without searching everyone that comes within 1000 feet of a school. There's no way to do that. Therefore, the only way it can be enforced is if something else happens that would allow a firearm to be discovered.