There have been convictions under the reenacted version of the GFSZ law and they have been upheld at the appellate level. I do not know if that involved an out-of-state license, but I seriously doubt it.ScottDLS wrote:BATF has taken the position that this means the license has to be issued by the state that you are in. Like you I think this is a dubious claim, but it hasn't been litigated yet, and probably never will as I don't believe that the ATF wants to risk getting the entire law thrown as in Lopez. On the other hand, you've got the recent idiotic straw purchase decision that just goes to show bad cases make bad case law.ELB wrote:The locals would not enforce it because it is a federal law. The feds do on occasion charge and convict people under this law. I don't know how many are convicted and then fail to appeal, but I have read several appeals of federal convictions under GFSZ statute, and IIRC, none were overturned. In every case I remember where there was a conviction, the GFSZ charge came about after the suspect was arrested for something else first, like drugs (mostly).Liberty wrote:...The Locals aren't going to enforce a silly unconstitutional GFSZ. It's a stupid law and unenforcable. 1000 FT is an unreasonable requirement it would make it pretty much illegal to have a gun in most urban and many suburban area. I don't think anyone has been charged, in Texas nor in the rest of the country. ...
There is one case I know of where the was person charged with a GFSZ violation and felon-in-possession, and had the charges thrown out at the federal district (trial) court. The Feds appealed to the circuit court, which also agreed with the district court, and refused to support the charges (because the person charged had had his 2A rights restored and had state license to carry). This person came to the attention of the feds because of a local incident that involved holding a gun to the neck of someone on school property. Could not find any further info on that part.
People do get charged, but generally they have to get caught doing something else bad first.
The GFSZ provides an exception for licensed carry:
Most people seem to think that means the license has to come from the state that the school is in, but I don't think it has ever been determined in court whether "licensed to do so by the State" would include that State's recognition of another State's license by reciprocity or proclamation. It appears from comments above that at least some LEOs would recognize a reciprocal license.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;
Chas.