TexasCHLforum.com

Whenever someone tells me to vote Republican because they're pro-gun, I remind them that Bush signed the original GFSZA and he also signed the gun import ban that's still in effect.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Liberty wrote:I think its worthy to note that not one single person has been tried or convicted under the Federal Gun free zone thing.

The all-knowing Wikipedia says that several have been tried under it and all have lost.

In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.

Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:
United States v Danks (1999)
United States v Tait (2000)
United States v Smith (2005)
United States v Nieves-Castaño (2007)
United States v Weekes (2007)
United States v Benally (2007)
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (2008)

True, however if you read these cases, they're almost all "pile on" charges when the gun carrier was doing something else wrong. Several are in "non-state" Federal jurisdictions...Puerto Rico, USVI,... and none has gone to the 5th circuit (of which Texas is a part).

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, the law still stands. It is one of the reasons why I have obtained several non-res permits in states where my Texas CHL is valid...Also, I collect them

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:Because the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act requires the state to background check and license you in order to allow you within 1,000 feet of any public, private, or parochial school. Try going through life without coming within a school zone.

Good point. I wonder how Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont manage that little item.

It's handled the same way marijana prohibition will be handled in California if Prop. 19 passes--it may be illegal under federal law, but there aren't enough federal agents on the street to enforce it to any meaningful degree.

I have a related question, as this thread came up in a search.

I have a Utah CFP. Texas offers full reciprocity. Does this also apply to the rule about 1,000 feet and a school zone? I would have assumed so, as Texas has given me the right (via reciprocity) to lawfully carry within the state...but I haven't been able to find a definitive (assumptions aside) yes/no to that.

The problem with the "gun free school zone" thing is that it's Federal.

Federal law allows an exemption if the school zone is in the same state that issued your CHL. Your Utah license won't qualify for a school zone in Texas.

Pawpaw wrote:Federal law allows an exemption if the school zone is in the same state that issued your CHL. Your Utah license won't qualify for a school zone in Texas.

It says "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located". It don't say "issued by". If a Utah license doesn't make you licensed to carry in Texas, then you're UCW to start with. But it does count, that's why it's legal to carry with a Utah or Florida license. Texas says you're licensed to carry in Texas if you have a Utah license, so the GFSZA doesn't matter.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScottDLS wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Liberty wrote:I think its worthy to note that not one single person has been tried or convicted under the Federal Gun free zone thing.

The all-knowing Wikipedia says that several have been tried under it and all have lost.

In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.

Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:
...
United States v Tait (2000)
...

True, however if you read these cases, they're almost all "pile on" charges when the gun carrier was doing something else wrong. ...

Two comments:

First, if Wikipedia really lists US vs. Tait as upholding a conviction, it is seriously wrong. Just the opposite happened. Tait was charged and tried by the Feds for having a gun in a school zone, but he was NOT convicted because he had a concealed handgun permit from Alabama (where the school zone was). It was the prosectors that appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the trial court erred because a) Tait had been convicted as a felon in another state and thus was ineligible to have a gun, much less a permit; and b) even if he was eligible, Alabama's concealed handgun permit process was not "good enough" to qualify for the exemption in the GFSZA because a federal background check was not required. The Feds lost on both counts: Tait's full rights had been restored by the previous state, and the appellate court ruled that the GFSZA simply called for a concealed carry permit, it did not specify any minimums.

The GFSZA (this is the second version) was not an issue at the trial or the appeal. It was simply accepted as the law. Many people have been convicted under it. When Congress added "interstate commerce" to the law, Lopez went away. Many people convicted of other crimes have tried to use Lopez as a lever to get there convictions tossed, but none succeeded that I know of. "Interstate commerce" are "magic constitutional words" as far as the ciruit courts are concerned.

Second, US vs Tait is an example of the GFSZA NOT being applied as a "pile-on," at least by the Feds. Its violation was the only thing Tait was charged with -- by the Feds. However, he came to their attention somehow because there was an incident on school property where he said to have held his gun to someone body (neck, I think). I have never been able to find if he was charged by the locals with something, or what the exact details that incident were.

More GFSZA goodness here:
FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act

ELB wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Liberty wrote:I think its worthy to note that not one single person has been tried or convicted under the Federal Gun free zone thing.

The all-knowing Wikipedia says that several have been tried under it and all have lost.

In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.

Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:
...
United States v Tait (2000)
...

True, however if you read these cases, they're almost all "pile on" charges when the gun carrier was doing something else wrong. ...

Two comments:

First, if Wikipedia really lists US vs. Tait as upholding a conviction, it is seriously wrong. Just the opposite happened. Tait was charged and tried by the Feds for having a gun in a school zone, but he was NOT convicted because he had a concealed handgun permit from Alabama (where the school zone was). It was the prosectors that appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the trial court erred because a) Tait had been convicted as a felon in another state and thus was ineligible to have a gun, much less a permit; and b) even if he was eligible, Alabama's concealed handgun permit process was not "good enough" to qualify for the exemption in the GFSZA because a federal background check was not required. The Feds lost on both counts: Tait's full rights had been restored by the previous state, and the appellate court ruled that the GFSZA simply called for a concealed carry permit, it did not specify any minimums.

The GFSZA (this is the second version) was not an issue at the trial or the appeal. It was simply accepted as the law. Many people have been convicted under it. When Congress added "interstate commerce" to the law, Lopez went away. Many people convicted of other crimes have tried to use Lopez as a lever to get there convictions tossed, but none succeeded that I know of. "Interstate commerce" are "magic constitutional words" as far as the ciruit courts are concerned.

Second, US vs Tait is an example of the GFSZA NOT being applied as a "pile-on," at least by the Feds. Its violation was the only thing Tait was charged with -- by the Feds. However, he came to their attention somehow because there was an incident on school property where he said to have held his gun to someone body (neck, I think). I have never been able to find if he was charged by the locals with something, or what the exact details that incident were.

More GFSZA goodness here:
FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act

Tait was an example of where the constitutionality of GFSZA did not come up. And I call it a "pile on" because the circumstances were such that he was holding a gun to some kid's head (or something to that effect) that easily could have resulted in state charges. I'll bet it was turned over to the Feds because they thought they could get a "no parole" federal conviction.

The other cases were...Federal jurisdictions like PR and USVI. In one the defendant had an unregistered machine gun. I don't see US attorneys putting it to the test by busting someone that was minding their own business driving through a school zone with a reciprocal license. Also a GFSZA case hasn't reached the 5th circuit (which we're in) yet. GFSZA #1 was struck down by the fifth circuit and that decision upheld by SCOTUS. Other circuits have upheld GFSZA #2, but I don't think recently (i.e. post Heller & McDonald).

Bullwhip wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Federal law allows an exemption if the school zone is in the same state that issued your CHL. Your Utah license won't qualify for a school zone in Texas.

It says "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located". It don't say "issued by". If a Utah license doesn't make you licensed to carry in Texas, then you're UCW to start with. But it does count, that's why it's legal to carry with a Utah or Florida license. Texas says you're licensed to carry in Texas if you have a Utah license, so the GFSZA doesn't matter.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the above underlined portion a few times. The key word is 'by'

You have to be licensed by the state in which the school zone is in.

With a Texas CHL, you are licensed by the state of Texas.
With a Utah CFP, you are licensed by the stare of Utah.

Reciprocity doesn't mean you're licensed by the state of Texas. You are still Licensed by Utah, Texas just recognizes that license.

dicion wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Federal law allows an exemption if the school zone is in the same state that issued your CHL. Your Utah license won't qualify for a school zone in Texas.

It says "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located". It don't say "issued by". If a Utah license doesn't make you licensed to carry in Texas, then you're UCW to start with. But it does count, that's why it's legal to carry with a Utah or Florida license. Texas says you're licensed to carry in Texas if you have a Utah license, so the GFSZA doesn't matter.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the above underlined portion a few times. The key word is 'by'

You have to be licensed by the state in which the school zone is in.

With a Texas CHL, you are licensed by the state of Texas.
With a Utah CFP, you are licensed by the stare of Utah.

Reciprocity doesn't mean you're licensed by the state of Texas. You are still Licensed by Utah, Texas just recognizes that license.

FWIW, I agree. IMHO, for the (despicable) law to have the meaning that Bullwip asserts, it would have to say "in" rather than "by".

dicion wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Federal law allows an exemption if the school zone is in the same state that issued your CHL. Your Utah license won't qualify for a school zone in Texas.

It says "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located". It don't say "issued by". If a Utah license doesn't make you licensed to carry in Texas, then you're UCW to start with. But it does count, that's why it's legal to carry with a Utah or Florida license. Texas says you're licensed to carry in Texas if you have a Utah license, so the GFSZA doesn't matter.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the above underlined portion a few times. The key word is 'by'

You have to be licensed by the state in which the school zone is in.

With a Texas CHL, you are licensed by the state of Texas.
With a Utah CFP, you are licensed by the stare of Utah.

Reciprocity doesn't mean you're licensed by the state of Texas. You are still Licensed by Utah, Texas just recognizes that license.

I think it does. License means permission, not a piece of plastic.

Great discussion, and shows why I am confused. From my point of view, reciprocity for CHL/CWP is the same as reciprocity for a license to practice medicine or law.

jvanwink wrote:Proposal would allow Utahns to pack hidden guns without permit

[Please post in accordance with Rule 19 and include a link.]

Because not enough Texans want it yet.

Even with the Republican sweep, the antigunners still have a lot of power in Texas.

Bullwhip wrote:

dicion wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:Federal law allows an exemption if the school zone is in the same state that issued your CHL. Your Utah license won't qualify for a school zone in Texas.

It says "if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located". It don't say "issued by". If a Utah license doesn't make you licensed to carry in Texas, then you're UCW to start with. But it does count, that's why it's legal to carry with a Utah or Florida license. Texas says you're licensed to carry in Texas if you have a Utah license, so the GFSZA doesn't matter.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Read the above underlined portion a few times. The key word is 'by'

You have to be licensed by the state in which the school zone is in.

With a Texas CHL, you are licensed by the state of Texas.
With a Utah CFP, you are licensed by the stare of Utah.

Reciprocity doesn't mean you're licensed by the state of Texas. You are still Licensed by Utah, Texas just recognizes that license.

I think it does. License means permission, not a piece of plastic.

The ATF would beg to differ.