TexasCHLforum.com

Per my reading of the Gun Free School Zones Act, it would appear that though my CHL allows me to carry within a 1000 feet of a K-12 school, it does not give me the right to fire in defense of myself. So the state could be good with an act of self-defense in such an area while the federal law would endanger me. Am I missing something?

sugar land dave wrote:Per my reading of the Gun Free School Zones Act, it would appear that though my CHL allows me to carry within a 1000 feet of a K-12 school, it does not give me the right to fire in defense of myself. So the state could be good with an act of self-defense in such an area while the federal law would endanger me. Am I missing something?

I'm missing what Federal law you would be violating.

apostate wrote:I'm missing what Federal law you would be violating.

18 USC § 922 Unlawful acts

(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.

Self defense is a justification defense that is used if you shoot someone. The same legal principle justifies other crimes -- like discharging a firearm in a GFSZ -- when it was necessary for self defense.

IF... I am carrying legally in a GFSZ and I am faced with the need for using deadly force in self defense, I am not going to hesitate to do so because this law might be trying to split hairs.... FACT... I am carrying legally.... FACT... I have a justifiable need to deploy deadly force.

Don't hesitate... It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

Trying to squeeze every drop of implication from reading that law should not change your behavior one bit.

...I too believe that I'd do what needed doin' and hope for the best...but to feel comfy, I'd have to read the exemption about justifiable self defense in FEDERAL law...if a person happened to be in the Post Office and had forgotten to leave his gun across the street in his car, and a madman came in and "went postal"...you might stop the carnage by shooting him, but count on a Federal arrest and charges for doing so...I'd say expect the same in a school zone...the Feds don't play by common sense, greater good, or what needs doin', in case we haven't noticed...

Has anyone ever been prosecuted under this law for a self defense shooting south of the Mason-Dixon line?

This is why I come to the forum, to learn things that go beyond my initial chl class training.

Sorry. Legitimate question.

I hear that people are rarely prosecuted for possession under GFSZA unless it's an add on charge for drug dealing ot something else. I wondered if (1) anyone has ever been prosecuted under that law for a self defense shooting anywhere and (2) where it was. I can maybe see Mayor Goonberg pushing for it, but hard to imagine it happening in what's left of America.

boba wrote:Has anyone ever been prosecuted under this law for a self defense shooting south of the Mason-Dixon line?

...don't know if anyone's EVER been prosecuted for it...but if there's no Federal exemption in the law, there's likelihood that they would...given their rigid enforcement of Federal law...I think the FBI would work with the Postal Inspectors to bring charges on the one...prolly the FBI on their own in a school zone situation...that'd make a good research project...

...pretty comprehensive article here: http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.co ... -zone-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...another article here: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1749/ ... CASES.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; states that under the new law, the prosecutors must prove as an element of the case that the weapon had an effect on interstate commerce...I'd like to hear lots more on that...maybe that's why we don't see cases...

speedsix wrote:

boba wrote:Has anyone ever been prosecuted under this law for a self defense shooting south of the Mason-Dixon line?

...don't know if anyone's EVER been prosecuted for it...but if there's no Federal exemption in the law, there's likelihood that they would...given their rigid enforcement of Federal law...I think the FBI would work with the Postal Inspectors to bring charges on the one...prolly the FBI on their own in a school zone situation...that'd make a good research project...

...pretty comprehensive article here: http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.co ... -zone-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...another article here: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1749/ ... CASES.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; states that under the new law, the prosecutors must prove as an element of the case that the weapon had an effect on interstate commerce...I'd like to hear lots more on that...maybe that's why we don't see cases...

There have been many prosecutions under the GFSZA (pretty much all "add-ons" as far as I can tell), but I don't know there was ever one for an otherwise justified self-defense shooting. If a person carrying a CHL was to fire in legit self-defense, I don't see the US district attorneys wasting too much time trying to prosecute even if it really is illegal to discharge a firearm in self-defense. If nothing else, I would think competing harms would protect him.

There was at least one federal prosecution of a CHL holder solely for having a firearm in a school zone, US vs Tait.. (There may have been an underlying state case against the guy, but could never find any details). The feds charged him with violating the GFSZA and with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Tait had been convicted of felonies in Michigan, served his sentence, and got out. Under Michigan law, all his rights were restored once he completed his sentence. He moved to Alabama and got a CHL, or whatever the Alabamians call it. The federal prosecutor claimed that the restoration of his rights by Michigan law wasn't good enough for federal purposes (altho his felony convictions were, apparently), and that the Alabama CHL didn't qualify for the GFSZA exemption because essentially it was too easy to get (no federal background check, for example). Both the federal trial judge and the federal appellate court ruled against the prosecution on both arguments.

More here:

FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act

sugar land dave wrote:

apostate wrote:I'm missing what Federal law you would be violating.

18 USC § 922 Unlawful acts

(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.

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,


I believe that is the part you are missing. Self defense shooting is IMHO NOT "reckless disregard for the safety of others"

It's usually intentional, however, which also satisfies the requirements for knowingly (if Federal law is anything like Texas wrt culpable mental states.)

speedsix wrote:

boba wrote:Has anyone ever been prosecuted under this law for a self defense shooting south of the Mason-Dixon line?

...don't know if anyone's EVER been prosecuted for it...but if there's no Federal exemption in the law, there's likelihood that they would...given their rigid enforcement of Federal law...I think the FBI would work with the Postal Inspectors to bring charges on the one...prolly the FBI on their own in a school zone situation...that'd make a good research project...

...pretty comprehensive article here: http://www.practicaltacticaltraining.co ... -zone-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...another article here: http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1749/ ... CASES.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; states that under the new law, the prosecutors must prove as an element of the case that the weapon had an effect on interstate commerce...I'd like to hear lots more on that...maybe that's why we don't see cases...

Thanks for linking :)