Ccw holder traveling past schools in states where ccw holder is not resident

[Eagle2009]

Unless it is unloaded and stored.

Unloaded, and stored in a LOCKED container.



Main USA Carry Fed GFSZA95 Thread: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/poli...ently-banned-under-federal-law-important.html

 

[santa]

i have talked to a couple of lawyers and they feel that the way the law is worded it allows for reciprocity or at least a test case could easily be made in court. either way you feel, it would pay to have a non-resident permit (if available) in any state you travel in. as i understand batf interpretation you would be safe. all it would take is a simple clarification by congress to clear this up. good luck getting obama to sign it.

 

[Eagle2009]

they feel that the way the law is worded it allows for reciprocity or at least a test case could easily be made in court

I agree that a test case could be made in court. However, if you read the permit exception to the Gun Free School Zones Act 1995 carefully, the biggest hurdle to reciprocity is not how one defines "licensed." Instead, it is the additional requirement that before any "license" is issued that the law enforcement authorities in the State or political subdivision where the school is located perform a background check, and that the State law REQUIRES them to perform a background check before any "license" is issued.

A lawyer may be able to convince a sympathetic judge that a traveler is "licensed by the State as a result of reciprocity," but even the most sympathetic judge could not be held to believe that the law-enforcement authorities in the State granting reciprocity had been required to perform, and had actually performed any kind of check before the "reciprocal license" was issued to the out-of-state traveler.

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;

 

[mrjam2jab]

I agree that a test case could be made in court. However, if you read the permit exception to the Gun Free School Zones Act 1995 carefully, the biggest hurdle to reciprocity is not how one defines "licensed." Instead, it is the additional requirement that before any "license" is issued that the law enforcement authorities in the State or political subdivision where the school is located perform a background check, and that the State law REQUIRES them to perform a background check before any "license" is issued.

A lawyer may be able to convince a sympathetic judge that a traveler is "licensed by the State as a result of reciprocity," but even the most sympathetic judge could not be held to believe that the law-enforcement authorities in the State granting reciprocity had been required to perform, and had actually performed any kind of check before the "reciprocal license" was issued to the out-of-state traveler.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding...but I'm seeing 2 different things above.

Paragraph 1) So essentially, while EVERY state may actually do a background check before issuance...unless the State statutes REQUIRE the check...that doesn't fall under the exception?

Paragraph 2) If i'm reading correctly...For me to carry in a school zone in IE NC with a PA LTCF, NC would have to do a background check on me?

 

[Shoegoo]

i have talked to a couple of lawyers and they feel that the way the law is worded it allows for reciprocity or at least a test case could easily be made in court. either way you feel, it would pay to have a non-resident permit (if available) in any state you travel in.....

There are a number of topics on concealed carry reciprocity on various forums. I am still not clear on what reciprocity means in terms of cc. If it is anything like other licensing, for example with Professional Engineering licensing there is reciprocity between states across the country, however as a practicing Engineer I would have to apply for a stamp in another state before I could stamp drawing, etc. I am not allowed to just walk across the border and practice Engineering.

However, people drive all over the country without multiple driving licenses.

In the case of concealed carry I don't know if it is possible or necessary to apply for a license in another state if reciprocity exists between the states.

 

[Eagle2009]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding...but I'm seeing 2 different things above.

Paragraph 1) So essentially, while EVERY state may actually do a background check before issuance...unless the State statutes REQUIRE the check...that doesn't fall under the exception?

Paragraph 2) If i'm reading correctly...For me to carry in a school zone in IE NC with a PA LTCF, NC would have to do a background check on me?

Yes, there are actually three separate and independent requirements laid out in the exception paragraph that must be satisfied before the exception applies.

1. The State or subdivision has granted a license.

2. The State or subdivision law REQUIRES the law enforcement authorities to verify the individual is qualified to receive the license.

3. The law enforcement authorities actually verify the person is qualified before granting the license.



If we want to get really confusing... we can bring in the definition of "law-enforcement authorities." Some permits are issued by administrative bodies... a county court clerk for example. As court clerks do not have "law enforcement powers" any permits issued by them would not qualify for the exemption. Nearly all permits in the country are in fact issued by law-enforcement authorities, but some are not. I believe this is an issue with some (all?) New Hampshire permits, which are issued by purely administrative bodies.

 

[Eagle2009]

Fr example with Professional Engineering licensing there is reciprocity between states across the country, however as a practicing Engineer I would have to apply for a stamp in another state before I could stamp drawing, etc. I am not allowed to just walk across the border and practice Engineering.

You bring up a very important point. By getting that "stamp" you are actually getting a separate "endorsement" from the State granting the stamp.


If there were a State (which there is not) that only granted reciprocity on the condition that a permit holder apply for and receive a "reciprocity endorsement stamp" at the police station, and would not issue the stamp until the police verified the person's identity, criminal history, and valid permit status... that would assumedly meet all three requirements for the GFSZA95 exemption. Anything short of that, would not.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In addition, you have to look at the plain and clear language of the statute. It says:

"licensed to do so BY the state in which the school zone is required to do so"

If I have a Washington CPL - Washington issued that licensed. I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun BY the state of Washington. Just because Idaho may recognize that license does not mean the Idaho did the licensing.

I am licensed to drive BY the state of Wyoming. Washington had nothing to do with the examination or the issuance of the license. Washington simply recognizes my Wyoming driver's license but Washington had nothing to do with the licensing process itself.

 

[jg1967]

Yes there are. I know people like to just ignore laws they think are dumb and believe they will not affect them but does anybody know if this has ever been enforced?

 

[Eagle2009]

-------Gun Free School Zones Act 1995 Convictions------


United States v Danks (1999) USA v. Jordan Danks

United States v Tait (2000) (Attempted prosecution of an Alabama permit holder) 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait | OpenJurist

United States v Haywood (2003) UNITED STATES of America v. Ira HAYWOOD, Appellant.

United States v Dorsey (2005) (Upheld the revised law as constitutional) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nikos Delano DORSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

United States v Smith (2005) USA v. Smith This case says that the mere movement of the gun's component parts in Interstate Commerce is enough to satisfy the jurisdictional element needed for conviction.

United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Belen NIEVES-CASTAÑO, Defendant, Appellant. A woman was convicted for having a gun in her home; which happened to be within 1000ft of a school.

United States v Weekes (2007) [Link Removed STATES OF AMERICA v. PHINEHAS WEEKES[/url]

United States v Benally (2007) Link Removed

United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008) Untitled #1668141

 

[jg1967]

Thanks, Eagle. I read the listed cases and all of them are about more than simply driving past a school with a valid CCW license. They all involve drugs, prior felonies, actual firing of the gun etc etc. Since I plan on not being involved in any of that I feel better now. My main concern was (and is) if anybody has ever been dragged off to the dungeons for just harmlessly driving past a school on a public road while carrying.

 

[Eagle2009]

The fact remains, anyone carrying in a State which they don't physically have a permit for, is committing multiple felonies. Those who rely on law-enforcement and the courts to look the other way are choosing a very dangerous path.

 

[jg1967]

You make it sound like there is any other option? What else can you do? You can't get a permit from all states, even if they all did issue permits to non-residents you'd be broke and too old to even lift a gun by the time you had the full set. I mean, seriously, what are you suggesting?

 

[Eagle2009]

What are you suggesting?

Contact your U.S. Senators about this issue.

 

[jg1967]

Well, I would, but I don't have one. I am a legal permanent resident alien, I have to pay taxes but I don't get to vote for anything or anybody. I actually really do agree with you, if I was a citizen I would write him. But as it is I have to along with it.

 

[mrjam2jab]

Well, I would, but I don't have one. I am a legal permanent resident alien, I have to pay taxes but I don't get to vote for anything or anybody. I actually really do agree with you, if I was a citizen I would write him. But as it is I have to along with it.

Anybody can send a letter.... :biggrin:

Write to the Senator that represents the area in which you live. State your case and address your concerns. You don't have to say anything about your residency or voter status.

 

[njsportsman]

This law must have been written by a New Jersey politician, so a judge who hates guns can convict you for being 999 feet from school property. The law gets kind of vague here.

Here's a letter from the ATF that seems to clarify things a bit, following the safe and sound advice of S&W645.

Link Removed

Welcome to my world. I get headaches reading NJ gun laws.

 

[KCD1974]

Thanks, Eagle. I read the listed cases and all of them are about more than simply driving past a school with a valid CCW license. They all involve drugs, prior felonies, actual firing of the gun etc etc. Since I plan on not being involved in any of that I feel better now. My main concern was (and is) if anybody has ever been dragged off to the dungeons for just harmlessly driving past a school on a public road while carrying.

I think you are exactly correct here, The intent of the law is to protect students from both themselves and others intending to do them harm. If you are driving down the street and get pulled over for say speeding, I don't think you are going to prison. Is there a chance yes, but try convincing 12 people that your INTENT was to cause trouble at the school and by a chance I mean sure some DA could charge you with that offense, but it is HIGHLY unlikely.

The general intent of the law, as I see it, is to be able to tack on a MASSIVE extra charge to someone who is involved in something else as well. I would be amazingly surprised if an average person CCW driving past a school, on a public road would be charged. Also, 1000ft is NOT very far, it sounds like a LONG way but according to my garmin lady (every time she tells me to turn) in 500ft, it's pretty quick.

I think if you stopped, got out, walked onto the school property, well then you are in trouble, driving past I don't think you will have any problems. This does serve as a very solid reminder to SLOW DOWN, STOP COMPLETELY at stop signs and avoid ANY reason for you to be pulled over near a school just as a precaution. Also, if you see a school go a block over, a block up, and just continue on your way. If there is no way around it, I REALLY REALLY doubt you're going to have an issue.

In MN (which I know is NOT the law were are discussing) you can only bring it on school grounds if you have written permission from the acting governing person (principal) or DAYCARE owner even a home daycare. Other wise you are okay to walk VERY close to your car to put it in the trunk...2-3 steps away is NOT very close.

Good Luck all and stay safe....

 

[jg1967]

Anybody can send a letter.... :biggrin:

Write to the Senator that represents the area in which you live. State your case and address your concerns. You don't have to say anything about your residency or voter status.

:biggrin: You are quite right! Guess I am too German, had not even thought of that!

 

[jg1967]

Kinda related:

Peter King, Leading Republican, To Introduce Strict Gun-Control Legislation

2 things about these people get me:

- is the idea to add more and more places like maybe churches, any place with a cash register, any place that sells alcohol, police stations until eventually there's only some outhouse in NE left that happens to be outside of all those zones? Or maybe later increase the radius?

- all of this is done under the pretense of PREVENTING gun violence. But simply by making a law nothing is prevented. So logically thinking you would either have to enforce it with searches or you have not changed a thing. There is no reason anybody who intends to do other people harm would worry about some law like this, he intends to violate much more important laws that carry stiffer penalties. The only real difference is that now you can add an additional charge if somebody actually does go crazy. But the claim was this would PREVENT the incident?

- all it really does is create more and more red tape and hassles for those of us who are responsible and law abiding carriers. As with the school zone act issue we probably end up having to rely on the good common sense of LEs and courts and the "spirit" of the law in order to not unintentionally do something wrong or get in trouble.