Out of State Warning

[tommyg]

When I moved back to Texas I had a permit to carry from another state that Texas does not honor
I had to go thru with the entire Texas process. I learned a lot from the Texas Class and I think it was worth it

Just did not carry until I was an established Texas resident with a Texas CHL

A lot of people don't realize that an out of state CHL does not exempt you from the Federal law concerning
1000 foot of a school.. It must be from the state that issues the license to be valid in a school zone.

The 1000 feet law is a real trap I have a Texas CHL ..My wife had to leave me in a Hotel in Houston
without a vehicle while she attended a work meeting.. I had my revolver under my Jacket I walked out of
the hotel to find a place to eat.. I didn't realize that there was an elementry school next to the hotel
Since I had a Texas CHL I didn't have anything to worry about but if I had an out of state carry license
it would have been a Federal felony.

[stash]

I wonder how many citizens drive within 1000 feet of a school and have a gun in their car and don't have Texas CHL? I don't think this is a problem unless you are arrested for something else in a GFSZ with a gun in the car or are carrying on a out of state license.

[texanjoker]

I wonder how many citizens drive within 1000 feet of a school and have a gun in their car and don't have Texas CHL? I don't think this is a problem unless you are arrested for something else in a GFSZ with a gun in the car or are carrying on a out of state license.

A lot. I know people that won't get a chl as they are "afraid" of being on some magic list somewhere. I tried explaining this very situation to one and he said it's worth the risk vs being on the list.

[Jumping Frog]

I've been following this particular issue for well over a decade.

Honestly, I believe there is a higher probability of being struck by lightning or eaten by a shark. The only exception seems to be when the DEA is involved with a drug arrest within the federal school zone, they will use the firearm violation as an "add-on" charge.

For regular people, first we have to realize that ordinary local police and county sheriffs aren't out there arresting people on federal charges, and it is not a state crime in Texas. When was the last time you saw the FBI making traffic stops?

If people were actually being arrested and charged for this, we would see these cases getting discussed in the Internet gun forums. Fact is, we read of all kinds of other crazy crimes on these forums, but you don't find actual cases discussed either in TexasCHLforum or on the big national boards like arfcom, TheHighRoad, etc. I have read one obscure reference to some CHL charged for this in the last 10+ years.

Go on any long distance interstate trip in your car, and I guarantee you pass hundred of schools within 1000 feet of various interstates. It is completely impossible to manage this. I read one study that showing over 90% of all urban/suburban land in the entire country is within 1000 feet of a school.

This is one situation where I spend zero energy worrying about it.

This is a bad law that needs to simply go away.

[Abraham]

If you have a Texas CHL you can legally be within a 1000 ft. of a school i.e. in the parking lot.

[Keith B]

If you have a Texas CHL you can legally be within a 1000 ft. of a school i.e. in the parking lot.

If you're in Texas

[Tic Tac]

Realistically speaking, there are a lot of people carrying under the MPA authority. I haven't heard of a single one arrested, much less prosecuted, for violating the GFSZA. It seems to be limited, in practice, to a stack on charge for drug dealers and so on.

[ELB]

I've been following this particular issue for well over a decade.
...
For regular people, first we have to realize that ordinary local police and county sheriffs aren't out there arresting people on federal charges, and it is not a state crime in Texas. When was the last time you saw the FBI making traffic stops?
...
This is a bad law that needs to simply go away.

I absolutely agree with you.

But for completeness' sake, the exception that proves the rule is 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait

Tait was prosecuted by the US Attorney under the GFSZA and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The US Attorney failed to get a conviction at the District (trial) Court level, and if I recall correctly, the judge threw the charges out before the case actually went to trial. The US Attorney appealed to the 11th Circuit appeals court, and they also tossed his case. I never found out what exactly got the US Attorney's attention in the first place, except that the appellate court decision mentions there was an incident in a school parking lot where Tait pointed a handgun at someone else. I could never find out if there was any legal action at the state level.

US vs Tait is the only appellate level case I ever found where the GFSZA did not seem to be an add-on to some kind of Federal drug case.

[ldj1002]

If a person in TX has a chl issued by another state and TX is reciprocal with that state , How can he be violation if within 1,000 ft of a school. I would think he would have all the right and privileges in TX as anyone with one issued in TX. If that is the case then how many other parts of the law can be violated if a person has an out of state license that a TX issued one isn't violating. Sounding to me like reciprocal agreements are no good. Maybe if I go to another state I should just leave my gun at home even if reciprocal with TX

[JALLEN]

I absolutely agree with you.

But for completeness' sake, the exception that proves the rule is 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait

Tait was prosecuted by the US Attorney under the GFSZA and for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The US Attorney failed to get a conviction at the District (trial) Court level, and if I recall correctly, the judge threw the charges out before the case actually went to trial. The US Attorney appealed to the 11th Circuit appeals court, and they also tossed his case. I never found out what exactly got the US Attorney's attention in the first place, except that the appellate court decision mentions there was an incident in a school parking lot where Tait pointed a handgun at someone else. I could never find out if there was any legal action at the state level.

US vs Tait is the only appellate level case I ever found where the GFSZA did not seem to be an add-on to some kind of Federal drug case.

From the Circuit Court opinion:

1

A federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Wiley Block Tait in January, 1999. The indictments arose from a 1997 incident wherein Tait possessed a pistol. Count One charged Tait with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). Count Two charged Tait with possessing a firearm in a gun-free school zone in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A).
2

Tait filed a motion to dismiss both counts, claiming that exceptions to both 922(g)(1) and 922(q)(2)(A) made his possession of the pistol legal. The district court granted Tait's motion to dismiss both counts, based on the court's interpretation and application of relevant statutes. The government appeals the district court's dismissal. This court reviews de novo dismissals based on statutory interpretation. Williams v. Homestake Mortgage Co., 968 F.2d 1137, 1139 (11th Cir.1992).
3

We affirm.

BACKGROUND
4

At the time of Tait's alleged violations, Tait had three prior felony convictions in the state of Michigan: a 1958 conviction for the crime of Utter & Publish; a 1962 conviction for Attempted Larceny from a Motor Vehicle; and a 1968 conviction for Enter Without Breaking. Each conviction was punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. In March, 1997, the Escambia County, Alabama Sheriff's Department issued Tait a pistol license. On November 3, 1997, the Atmore, Alabama Police Department arrested Tait after he allegedly placed a fully-loaded gun against a student's neck while on Escambia County High School property. The two-count indictment against Tait followed.

[ELB]

If a person in TX has a chl issued by another state and TX is reciprocal with that state , How can he be violation if within 1,000 ft of a school.

It is not clear to me that it is absolutely true that one state's CHL does not qualify one for the GFSZA exception in another state with reciprocity, but the text of the GFSZA could be interpreted that way. Here is the text

(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—
...
(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;

It says the "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located..." OK, to my thinking, if Texas recognizes Indiana's License To Carry Handgun (LTCH), then I would think that a person with an Indiana LTCH is "licensed" by Texas to carry a handgun (which is what reciprocity is all about), and would be good to go in a Texas school zone. However, I don't know that this has ever been tested in court, and could certainly be aggressively contested by an unfriendly US Attorney.

Maybe if I go to another state I should just leave my gun at home even if reciprocal with TX

Oh I wouldn't go that far. As noted here and in numerous other threads, your chances of ever having to deal with this question are close to non-existent unless you are doing drug deals or other gang activity in the reciprocal state's school zones.

[Keith B]

It says the "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located..." OK, to my thinking, if Texas recognizes Indiana's License To Carry Handgun (LTCH), then I would think that a person with an Indiana LTCH is "licensed" by Texas to carry a handgun (which is what reciprocity is all about), and would be good to go in a Texas school zone. However, I don't know that this has ever been tested in court, and could certainly be aggressively contested by an unfriendly US Attorney.

No. You are licensed by the state that issues your license. Your license is 'honored' by a state with which you have reciprocity. Just like your drivers license, it is from one state that issued it, but all states honor it.

Now, there is a way you COULD be legal in that state, and that is to have that state's non-resident license. An example is if as a Texas resident you had a Florida non-resident license. If you were in Flroida you would get the GFSZ exemption.

[ELB]

..
No. You are licensed by the state that issues your license. Your license is 'honored' by a state with which you have reciprocity. Just like your drivers license, it is from one state that issued it, but all states honor it...

Oh, I think you have a good argument, but not the definitive one. I think your argument hinges more on who initially produces and issues the license. I argue that "licensed by the State" for the GFSZA means sanctioned or authorized to carry a firearm. Consider this:

Texas law does not "honor" any carry license or permit from another state, it "recognizes" them (interestingly, only if the other state conducts a federal background check). This "recognition" is authorized in Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, which is of course the legal authority for concealed handgun licenses in Texas.

Every part of the Penal Code (that I can find) that excepts a license holder from the various handgun prohibitions, like 46.02, does so for a person "licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code;" no place does it also say anything about a "person" whose license or permit is "recognized." In other words, Texas law treats a "recognized" license or permit produced and issued by another state exactly the same as a Texas-issued license.

Therefore, Texas effectively, nearly explicitly, "licenses" those people with out-of-state but "recognized" licenses or permits to carry in Texas. A person who has a license or permit from a state that Texas does not have reciprocity with, that is, a state whose license Texas does not "recognize," would not be "licensed by the State [of Texas]" to carry in a school zone (or anywhere else) within Texas.

The argument here being that "licensed by the State" means the state officially and/or formally sanctions the carrying of a handgun by some person. As already noted, unless the federal (GFSZA) explicitly places other requirements, it is up to the State to decide who is licensed to carry and who is not, so if the State of Texas says an Indiana guy with an LTCH can carry in Texas, then he meets the requirement for the GFSZA exception about licensed people carrying guns in school zones.

So, might fly in federal court, might not, but I don't think it is quite so black-and-white that a State who "licenses" someone to carry must take the photo and the fingerprints and produce the document, at least for the purposes of the GFSZA.

Unlikely that we will get a definitive answer to this anytime soon, but fun to examine.

[ldj1002]

It's a bucket of worms. Reciprocal agreement with Indiana allows one to carry in a restaurant in TX but not a school zone. I think all the TX chl laws refer to licensed in TX.

[JSThane]

If it's concealed, how would anyone know? How would cops, FBI, et. al., find out about it? Either the person with the gun would have to be doing something -else- that got their attention, or the LEO is conducting an illegal search. Either the gun is being very obviously involved in a major crime, which would be a crime on or off campus regardless, or the gun is not involved in any crime at all (other than crossing an invisible, arbitrary line), and no one will ever find out about it.

This law is, quite frankly, impossible to enforce, absent some other illegal derring-do on the part of the gun owner which would provide Probable Cause to even search and -find- the gun. If it's per an illegal search, then it's inadmissable in court, and therefore pointless. If it's on the part of some real crime, then the possession charge is still pointless, as it's small potatoes next to the real thing.

Frankly, this law is as pointless as licensing concealed-carry. Those who violate ONLY this law will probably never be found out. Those who ARE discovered, are usually involved in something heinous against persons or property anyway, and don't care that it's illegal for them to use a gun in the commission of a felony, which is the only way to discover the carry law is being violated in the first place. It's a victimless crime. Finding a violation of the law requires another felony, or a 4th Amendment violation.

I do hold a CHL in New Mexico, and have held one in Texas. I do follow this pointless and impossible-to-enforce law, but it doesn't change the fact that it IS pointless and impossible to enforce. It's the same way with the schools and "Gun Free Zones." It's pointless and impossible to enforce.