[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: GUN-FREE ZONES ACT: MYTH VS. REALITY Friday, 01 November 1996 00:00 Excerpts Some advocates, both in Congress and in the Second Amendment community, have attempted to dismiss the tragic sweeping importance of new federal legislation to create expansive "gun free zones" around every American school. Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed that "its effect on gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new law will "have little effect." Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this gun ban merely because they felt it would have a minimal effect. And EVEN IF the impact of this new law was minimal, gun owners should be outraged by ANY law restricting their rights. The Second Amendment states that the "right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those words do not leave any room for making compromises. The "gun free school zone" legislation would create a virtual 1/2 mile wide "gun free" circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going in any one direction from any school) -- a zone which could possibly include home schools. Anyone carrying a gun within this "gun free zone" would be subject to five years in prison, unless he or she has fulfilled one of the government-ordained exceptions to the law -- these exemptions treating our liberties more as privileges, rather than rights. (More on this below.) Isn't this the same as the law that was passed in 1990? The new law is virtually word-for-word the same as the previous law. When the first disastrous "gun free zones" provision was passed in 1990, it was almost immediately challenged. The effective date was January 27, 1991. By the first months of 1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which ultimately overturned the law in the Supreme Court, had transpired. Specifically, the new law requires that the gun "affects interstate and foreign commerce." This "affects commerce" language is so broad that, in one case, a farmer was held to have "affected commerce" by growing and wholly consuming his own crops, on the basis that commerce would be altered if every farmer did the same. Obviously, given this interpretation, there would be no human activity that did not "affect commerce," and the change would have absolutely no impact on the implementation of the unconstitutional 1990 law. Could this law ban gun ownership by home schoolers? The law bans guns within 1,000 feet from the "grounds" of a "public, parochial or private school..." "School" means "a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as defined under State law." Contrary to the assertions of the House Judiciary Committee, most -- if not all -- states do recognize that home schools provide "elementary or secondary education" for the purpose of exempting those students from the mandatory attendance requirements of state law. The act does NOT specifically look to state law with respect to the question of whether a "home school" is a "private school." But there is a substantial danger that courts will make that finding. Webster's Dictionary defines "private" to mean: "2. not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public [a private school]." Obviously, a home school is not open to, intended for, or controlled by the public. Every educated advocate interested in preserving home schools who has reviewed this problem has reached the same conclusion: there is too much of a danger that this act will be interpreted to prohibit the possession of firearms by parents who home school their kids. Aren't there adequate exemptions to protect law-abiding gun owners? Let's look at these "so-called" exemptions: THE BOGUS "HUNTER EXEMPTION:" The so-called "hunter exemption" applies only when the school authorities specifically give permission for a hunter to cross their property -- and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming that a hunter on the way to a hunting trip would have to cross fifty school zones, that hunter would have to check with all fifty schools -- or risk being a felon if he did not qualify under another exemption. THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What this so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the authorities as a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon in his or her car. While many gun owners have made the choice to register themselves in order to carry concealed, many have decided to keep their names off of any government list. (In fact, the recent abuses in states like Virginia and Pennsylvania -- where newspapers are printing the names of CCW holders -- show how easily this registration information can be abused.) Before this "gun free zones" law, motorists in many states could legally transport a loaded firearm for self-defense, without getting a CCW permit. For example, Vermont allows any citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. (Vermont law only prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm with the purpose of committing a crime.) Thus, citizens in Vermont can carry legally without jumping through any government-ordained "hoops" -- there is no registration, license fees or taxes. But now under the federal gun free zones provision, law-abiding motorists from Vermont and other states will have to beware. Those who could previously transport a loaded firearm will be stripped of their right to carry a self-defense firearm within 1,000 feet of a school (unless they qualify under another exemption). THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely limited exemption would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm in a LOCKED BOX or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW permit as explained above. Even an UNLOADED gun kept in a glove compartment for self-protection would subject the bearer to a five-year prison sentence. Furthermore, this is true even if the person transporting the gun is an OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER. Note: Citizens in states like Virginia and Colorado should beware. While these states allow motorists to carry a firearm in the passenger compartment, an obvious conflict arises now when the motorist comes within 1,000 feet (about 3 blocks) of a school. Many jurisdictions now set up road blocks to give sobriety checks and check for seat belts being worn. Police who conduct these road blocks within a school zone will now have one more "prohibited activity" to inspect for. THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that a person living within a school zone would not automatically have to relinquish his guns, it would be UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OUTSIDE HIS HOUSE. Furthermore, the private property exemption only applies to "private property not part of school grounds." Home schools might not be exempted since these clearly fall within the definition of a school under U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921), which defines a "school" as a place which "provides elementary or secondary education as determined under state law." Don't most states have comparable laws? No. Many states have laws which, on their face, are much narrower than the federal law and do not create mammoth "gun-free zones." For instance, Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school functions." The fact that the expansive federal law is putting pressure on states to enact equally repressive measures at the state level is a recent development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new law. (1) Finally, and obviously, anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this piece of legislation merely because they felt it was redundant of state legislation currently on the books. Here we go again Gun owners should not be confused when they hear leaders in the gun community telling them that anti-gun legislation is not that bad, that such a law will "have little effect." Gun owners have heard this song and dance for almost a century. Consider that in 1934, the executive vice-president of one gun organization testified in Congress that, "You can be just as severe with machine guns and sawed-off shotguns as you desire, and we will go along with you." (2) With this endorsement, Congress subsequently passed the Gun Control Act of 1934. In 1963, another executive vice-president of the same gun group told Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) that, "I do not deny you have a problem with mail-order guns, Senator. We want to do everything we can to help you. We will support any reasonable type of legislation to beat that type of business because it is unconscionable." (3) Five years later, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. At first, each of these laws may have appeared to "have little effect." But at a minimum, the National Firearms Act of 1934 resulted in Randy Weaver losing his wife almost 60 years later, and gave the "justification" for the raid on the Davidians in Texas. The Gun Control Act of 1968 resulted in the elevation of the BATF to its current status -- an agency which required separate legislation in 1986 to curb many of its abuses. ============ 1. Even many of the states that have "school zone" laws are not as restrictive as the federal law. For instance, while Florida has a law prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, it only applies "during school hours" or during the time of a "sanctioned school activity." (The federal law applies 24 hours a day.) Poster Comment: Excerpts: Disastrous Gun Law Sparked School Shootings - gunwatch.blogspot.com Wednesday, December 19, 2012 From 1900 to the late 1990’s, there were no mass shootings in schools. Lest it be thought that guns were uncommon in schools, that was not the case. Guns were commonly brought to school for shooting competitions, hunting after school, for teachers to trade or show to each other or their students, or for show and tell. Guns were even made in shop class under the supervision of the shop teacher. Guns were common in gun racks in pickup trucks in the school parking lot. During the height of gun control fever during the first Bush Presidency, the Congress passed the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. It was designed to make it impossible for ordinary people to carry guns most places, because it forbid the carrying of guns within a thousand feet of a school. If you overlap the 1000 foot gun free zones that surround schools in most cities and towns, no one can go about their daily business without intersecting one of these zones at some time. The Gun Free School Zone act was quickly challenged in the courts, and found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court under the interstate commerce clause, in U.S. v. Lopez, 1995. The reasoning was simple: If merely possessing a gun within a thousand feet of a school was interstate commerce, and therefore subject to federal regulation, what could possibly be construed as not interstate commerce? Virtually everything would then be controlled by the federal government. As the Constitution means something, the interstate commerce clause must mean something. If all of life can be controlled by the federal government, the clause means nothing. President Clinton blew a gasket when the Gun Free School Zone act was found unconstitutional. He fiercely lobbied congress to pass a replica act, slightly modified. He threatened to keep congress from adjourning to go home to run for office if they did not pass the replica act. They passed the new Gun Free School Zone act in 1996. The results of the Gun Free School Zone act’s passage have been devastating. The first mass shooting in a school since before 1900 occurred in 1997. As prominent researcher John Lott has noted, mass shooters are attracted to defenseless victim zones. While zones that ban armed citizens are a tiny percentage of the nation’s area, according to Lott, only one of the “successful” (four or more victims) mass shootings in the past thirty years occurred outside of a defenseless victim zone (gun free zone). only one of the “successful” (four or more victims) mass shootings in the past thirty years occurred outside of a defenseless victim zone (gun free zone). Since the Gun Free School Zone act was passed for the second time in 1996, 13 mass school shootings have occurred. This unconstitutional law has been a disaster and should be repealed. ============ Excerpts: United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia United States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the Gun Free School Zones Act with the necessary interstate-commerce "hook" used in other Federal Gun Laws. The revised Federal Gun Free School Zones Act is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. Excerpts: Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Wikipedia The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) is a federal United States law that prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a "school zone" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25). Its formal title is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and is sometimes referred to as the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Following the Lopez decision, President Clinton's Attoney General Janet Reno proposed changes These minor changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce".[6] As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce [sic] critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.[5] The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause. Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. Most states allow some form of unlicensed carry by people without criminal convictions.[8] This may be open-carry,[8] vehicle-carry,[9] or concealed carry without the need for a permit.[10] The Federal GFSZA prohibits unlicensed carry by making it a federal crime for an unlicensed individual to travel into a "Gun Free School Zone unless they meet one of the other criteria defined in Section 'B'." [11][12][13][14] The large number of K-12 schools in developed areas makes it difficult for an individual to travel any distance without entering a Gun Free School Zone.[2][11][12][14] Although the Federal GFSZA does provide an exception for an individual licensed to carry a firearm, this exception only applies in the State that physically issued the permit.[2][11][14][15] Forty-nine States, all but Illinois, have provisions to issue concealed carry permits to citizens.[16] Most of these States also enter into reciprocity agreements with other States where each State agrees to recognize the other's concealed carry permits.[16] Because the Federal GFSZA requires the permit be issued by the State which the school zone is in, it is difficult for a permit holder to travel outside their State of issuance to a reciprocating State without violating the Federal GFSZA.[2][11][14][15] Although the GFSZA does provide an exception for a law-enforcement officer performing their official duties, it does not provide any protection for an off-duty officer.[13] An off-duty LEOSA qualified officer is unable to legally travel within one-thousand (1000) feet of any K-12 school while armed unless he/she has a valid carry license issued by that state.[11][13][14] Although the GFSZA allows a citizen to discharge a firearm on private property,[14] it prohibits discharge on public property in the Gun Free Zones by anyone except on-duty law enforcement and school security.[14] A carry permit never exempts an individual from the GFSZA discharge restrictions, even in the State that physically issued it.[14] Proposed amendments On July 21, 2011 US Representative Ron Paul introduced H.R. 2613 which would repeal the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act. The bill was last referred to the House Judiciary Committee.[18] Pic: Page 1 of BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Exempt A Permit Holder From GFSZA [1][2] [3][4] Pic: Page 2 of BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Exempt A Permit Holder From GFSZA [1][2][3][4] ============ Bill Would Repeal Gun Free School Zones Act - usgovinfo.about.com Why repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act? "Gun free school zones are ineffective," said Rep. Massie in a press release. "They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments. Gun free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals." Massie's Citizens Protection Act of 2013 is just one of two bills now before Congress seeking to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act. On Jan. 3, 2013, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) introduced his Safe Schools Act of 2013 (H.R. 35), which argues that repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act would "restore safety to America's schools by allowing staff, teachers, and administrators to defend the children and themselves." Both bills have been referred to the House committee system, which is where Rep. Ron Paul's original 2007 bill repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act died without further consideration. ============ Time to Roll Back All Gun Bans - fromthetrenchesworldreport.com Someone asked me recently what might make a good compromise with those at war with the Second Amendment. My answer is there is no compromise. In fact, we have compromised too much in the past, opening the door for the banning of classifications of firearms that will, if unchecked and not reversed, lead inevitably to an American society devoid of the weapons of meaningful self-defense – both against criminals and future tyrants. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||
