Out of State Warning

[mikeloc]

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.

The ATF published a letter about twelve years ago and claimed in their letter that by federal law your license in a school zone was only good if it was located in the state that issued the license. The latest law is based on an older law that was passed in congress. That law was challenged once and was found to be unconstitutional. The latest law has not been tested.

Mike

[puma guy]

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.

Our school district has a propensity for putting schools on the busies main thoroughfares in town. There are schools near subdivisions that make it impossible to get to your abode w/o violating the GFZ if you have no CHL. Another instance of the stupidity of lawmakers who have no touch with the real world.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

It wouldn't be that hard for the firearm to be discovered. Consider getting stopped by a LEO for speeding in a school zone (doing 6MPH in a 5 zone). The officer asks for license and registration, and following Texas law, you also give him your out-of-state gun license. He then asks if you're armed. I agree it would be unlikely that they'd try to add on the FGFSZ charge, but they could try if they wanted to.

[mikeloc]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 95_ccw.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Mike

[bizarrenormality]

There are schools within 1000' of a highway but, as we should know by now, logic is irrelevant to gunphobes and enemies of the United States Constitution.

[mikeloc]

[cb1000rider]

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.

Have you read the agreement. Looking at reciprocity when going from TX to MI, the language in MI indicated that a TX CHL had "all the rights and privileges" (quoted off the top of my head) granted a MI CHL. Note, I didn't look at it the other way around.

[G26ster]

To believe that "recognition" of another state's license, granting all rights and privileges to conceal carry in TX has the same meaning as "issued by" the state of TX, is a stretch. I seriously doubt that it would hold up in court. But, I am not an attorney. The GFSZ is a federal law, not a state law, and states cannot modify the law.

verb (issues, issuing, issued)

1 [with object] supply or distribute (something) for use or sale:licences were issued indiscriminately to any company

[jocat54]

Then there people who live closer than a 1000' to a school and maybe carrying under mpa or an out of state license...guess they're breaking the law also. To darn many laws!

[Keith B]

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.

Have you read the agreement. Looking at reciprocity when going from TX to MI, the language in MI indicated that a TX CHL had "all the rights and privileges" (quoted off the top of my head) granted a MI CHL. Note, I didn't look at it the other way around.

That is the State of Michigan's rules. Not federal. See the link above in mikeloc's post. You must have a license from the state you are in to be allowed the school zone exemption. AND, the exemption only exists IF your stae's CHL allows you to be within 1000' of a school.

[mikeloc]

Then there people who live closer than a 1000' to a school and maybe carrying under mpa or an out of state license...guess they're breaking the law also. To darn many laws!

No they are not breaking any laws. One of the federal exceptions to the 1000' rule is if you live within 1000'; another is if you are hunting within 1000' feet etc. There are other exceptions but we always get hung up on the letter from ATF written in 2002. As far as I can find out no one was has been charged for the federal 1000' rule with their firearm in their car with an out of state license to carry a firearm. If you read the letter from ATF that would also make it against the law under the federal travel law. There was a case in the early 1990's when the law was a little different and that law was thrown out because it was unconstitutional.



Mike

[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.

It wouldn't be that hard for the firearm to be discovered. Consider getting stopped by a LEO for speeding in a school zone (doing 6MPH in a 5 zone). The officer asks for license and registration, and following Texas law, you also give him your out-of-state gun license. He then asks if you're armed. I agree it would be unlikely that they'd try to add on the FGFSZ charge, but they could try if they wanted to.

And people always tell the truth?

Seriously, I assume -everyone- is armed, and that unless I see the gun, -no one- will admit it. Of course, I don't particularly care, unless it's pointed at me, but... while the gun might be easily discovered, getting that evidence into court is a bit harder.

Fact is, if the officer won't / can't arrest for the offense, then he has no legal avenue to search the person and/or vehicle, and therefore, if he does, the entire thing is inadmissable in court. If he can arrest and will, then you've probably done something a bit more serious than carting a piece of metal and some copper-jacketed lead safely and unobtrusively past a magical unicorn and rainbow generating public school, and you've got a good bit more to worry about.

I've heard it called the "fruit of the poisonous tree." If the officer has no probable cause to search, it's not admissable. Simply saying, "No, I left it at home" does not constitute probable cause, no matter how much I, or any other LEO, might want it to be (and I don't).

[cb1000rider]

That is the State of Michigan's rules. Not federal. See the link above in mikeloc's post. You must have a license from the state you are in to be allowed the school zone exemption. AND, the exemption only exists IF your stae's CHL allows you to be within 1000' of a school.

Thanks for the clarification..

[texanjoker]

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.

I've seen school zones used for dope enforcement. On one caper I worked after the fact, the house was searched for nothing to do with dope, but some personal marijuana was found. The guy was charged with the school zone enhancement because his house was down the street from a school. (that was the least of his worries)

Here is another dilemma. You park your car within the 1000 foot zone or even at school picking up your kids and it is broken into and your weapon taken. You forget about the zone and call the PD to make a report and you potentially open up a can of worms.

[Keith B]

I've seen school zones used for dope enforcement. On one caper I worked after the fact, the house was searched for nothing to do with dope, but some personal marijuana was found. The guy was charged with the school zone enhancement because his house was down the street from a school. (that was the least of his worries)

Well, their's no exemption for the drug free school zone. And besides being a federal law, it is also state law for the enhancement, so a person is charged at a state level and the enhancement is to the state charge. See http://www.tdcaa.com/node/2494" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is another dilemma. You park your car within the 1000 foot zone or even at school picking up your kids and it is broken into and your weapon taken. You forget about the zone and call the PD to make a report and you potentially open up a can of worms.

What would you be charged with and by who? Locals can't enforce the federal gun free school zone. And in Texas it is not illegal for you to have a firearm in your car in the school property. The only way this would be a problem is if a federal agency was pulled in to be involved, and they are not going to do that for a stolen handgun.