OK2A Releases July 25, 2013 ATF Letter Regarding Oklahoma Carry Permits and Fed GFSZA

[rawhide]

All the above information is helpful but my question is assuming GFSZ Act will not be over turned what can we do about it on the state Level?

 

[SMS]

All the above information is helpful but my question is assuming GFSZ Act will not be over turned what can we do about it on the state Level?

Since it's not likely we would get hemmed up by a federal agent, the biggest impact we can/could have at the local level is to act as watch dogs for our local officials.

Brand and expel anyone who enforces it against otherwise lawfully carrying individuals, or anyone who supports/hires/employs people who enforce it.

Have there been any cases in Oklahoma where someone has been arrested or charged for simply driving through a GFSZ?

 

[Cougar]

1. The SCOTUS doesn't "have" to strike all laws that could be construed as relevant to a particular decision....

2. Unlike the statute in Bass, 922(q) has no express jurisdictional element

1. You are correct, the court only rules on the specific issue presented to them. However, striking down one statute that contains a jurisdictional element would lead to many many more cases in which other statutes with jurisdictional elements (read all federal criminal laws) would be challenged based on the precedent.

2. The original 922(q), that was struck down in Lopez, did not have a jurisdictional element, which is why it was struck down. The revised 922(q), which is currently in effect, does have a jurisdictional element, because they put one in to satisfy the Lopez decision. Again, they literally forgot to put it into the original law, but fixed their legislative mistake after the court pointed it out in Lopez. If the original law hadn't been quietly rushed into a larger must-pass bill, they would have caught their mistake, and corrected it, before the first Fed GFSZA made it into law.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

What exactly does this thing mean? So I can be driving down the road and get pulled over and be arrested for legally carrying my firearm? And if someone is trying to carjack me I can't defend myself? And what is the 1,000 feet thing yell keep referring to? I have read the sda handbook many times but this is new to me. I have never heard of this crap. I know a little about the gun free zones but apparently not enough. I just never carry in a school and don't leave my gun in the car if i have to go in. I just don't take it with me.

 

[rawhide]

What exactly does this thing mean? So I can be driving down the road and get pulled over and be arrested for legally carrying my firearm? And if someone is trying to carjack me I can't defend myself? And what is the 1,000 feet thing yell keep referring to? I have read the sda handbook many times but this is new to me. I have never heard of this crap. I know a little about the gun free zones but apparently not enough. I just never carry in a school and don't leave my gun in the car if i have to go in. I just don't take it with me.

It depends

People who have a carry permit physically issued by the State in which the school is located are exempted by the federal law, but only in the State that physically issued the permit, and only if their State performed the "proper" background check. The law does not exempt out-of-state travelers who have permits recognized by the State they are visiting, those that live in States which allow unlicensed carry, or off-duty law enforcement officers. It is also important to note that it is a violation for anyone other than an on-duty police officer or a school security guard to discharge a firearm in a school zone for any reason. A State carry permit never exempts a person from the discharge prohibition.

Anyone convicted of violating this law faces up to five years in federal prison for each violation, and will become statutorily prohibited by the Gun Control Act of 1968 from owning firearms for life.

On a similar note a park ranger in Yellowstone National Park told me that a firearm is my best defense against a bear attack but that discharging my weapon, that I can legally carry, would be a federal crime.

 

[mons meg]

Have there been any cases in America where someone has been arrested or charged for simply driving through a GFSZ?

SMS, fixed your question. I'm not aware of any cases anywhere like that, but I could be wrong.

Cougar, I guess I am reading Rehnquist's ruling opinion in Lopez fundamentally differently than you are. It seems to me he went at great length to say the Commerce Clause has an outer limit. The references to jurisdictional elements are reasons, but not THE reason, kind of like when we say "well regulated militia" is areason to keep and bear arms, not the reason.

 

[SMS]

Thanks. I phrased it the way I did in the context of rawhide's question "what can we do about it at the State level."

Has there been any inclination that any agency/department in Oklahoma interprets the Act the same way the BATFE does?

 

[mons meg]

I should hope not. I suppose we could, at the State level, pass a law forbidding local enforcement of or compliance with GFSZA, similar to what we did with REAL ID.

 

[rawhide]

House Bill 2324

A person who has not been convicted of a violent felony crime and who is lawfully able to own or possess a firearm under Section 26 of Article II of the Oklahoma Constitution shall be considered to be individually licensed and verified by the State of Oklahoma within the meaning of the provisions regarding individual licensure and verification pursuant to the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act.

Haven't found the story on google yet but heard the story of a man held by local LEO for ATF after being stopped for speeding in a school zone. He had a CCL from neighboring state, was legally carrying and faced no charges other than a speeding ticket. There are several cases of GFSZA violations as add on charges to other crimes.

 

[rawhide]

Found a little more on charges and convictions:

http://castle.eiu.edu/ipsa/include2/download.php?id=12

President Bill Clinton signed the revised GFSZA into law on September 30, 1996 (104 P.L. 208), and since it has taken
effect federal prosecutors have filed almost 600 charges for violations of the revised GFSZA (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012). Importantly, circuits in the federal Court of Appeals have upheld the constitutionality of the revised statute (e.g., U.S. v. Danks [221
F.3d. 1037 (1999)], U.S. v. Dorsey [418 F.3d. 1038 (2005)]), and the Supreme Court has declined to review these decisions on appeal. Thus the GFSZA remains “good law” and convictions stemming from its violation also remain valid.

...since the revised GFSZA was signed into law in 1996, at least 589 cases have been filed for violations of that provision, and in the vast majority of cases closed the charged party has pleaded guilty (n = 455). Even in cases that have gone
to the jury, the defendant is more often found guilty (53 times since FY 1996) than not (23 times since FY 1996). Thus, in almost 70 percent of cases involving the GFSZA that have gone to the jury a guilty verdict has been returned.