TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Waiting for someone to warn you about ATF interpretation of GFSZA that says you can't carry within 1000ft of a school on an out of state license.

That interpretation may or may not be valid,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 3gfsza.pdf

See paragraphs 4 and 5 on page 1.

Personal opinion...... It would be extremely unwise to OC near a school with only an out of State license.

Thank you for the link. Here is the pertinent part:

GFZA.png

ScottDLS wrote:It's only a felony if you get caught...

Which goes to the OP's original question. I am NOT advising him to carry a gun in a GFSZ because it would not be legal at all in Texas on his FL license. But that said, concealed is concealed, and barring some kind of police interaction, he would not be likely to get caught......whereas OC in a GFSZ on an out of state license is just begging for trouble.

Glockster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Waiting for someone to warn you about ATF interpretation of GFSZA that says you can't carry within 1000ft of a school on an out of state license.

That interpretation may or may not be valid,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 3gfsza.pdf

See paragraphs 4 and 5 on page 1.

Personal opinion...... It would be extremely unwise to OC near a school with only an out of State license.

Thank you for the link. Here is the pertinent part:

GFZA.png

ScottDLS wrote:It's only a felony if you get caught...

Which goes to the OP's original question. I am NOT advising him to carry a gun in a GFSZ because it would not be legal at all in Texas on his FL license. But that said, concealed is concealed, and barring some kind of police interaction, he would not be likely to get caught......whereas OC in a GFSZ on an out of state license is just begging for trouble.

Since we're there, I do wonder about the last sentence of "Paragraph 4" as to whether that fits for Texas - whether there is a law that "requires" law enforcement to verify that someone "is qualified under law to receive the license" as I don't believe that we have that law. I'm sure that LE thinks that they have the duty to and are allowed to see if we have a license, but is there in fact in TX a requirement for LE to determine that a CHL holder is qualified to have a CHL. Does that instead refer to that DPS to verifies eligibility to issue, and is so does DPS have an official designation as LE (that I don't find) - and I don't mean the TX Rangers, but the DPS part that reviews and grants a CHL. Otherwise, I myself read that exception as saying that it doesn't apply here. Am I misreading that?

The Annoyed Man wrote:However, remember, under HB910, a bone of contention which almost derailed passage, was the addition/removal in both house and senate of the Dutton/Huffines Amendments. Those amendments, as in OK, would have specifically prevented an LEO for asking to see your license if OC'ing, unless you had committed some offense. The Amendments were struck from the final bill, under enormous pressure from law enforcement lobbies who couched it as an LEO safety issue, and the final enrolled version of HB910 does not contain wording that prevents a LEO from asking to see your license. So while there's no requirement for them to do so, they are certainly free to do so, and in a lot of metropolitan areas, this is exactly what is going to happen.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Glockster wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:Waiting for someone to warn you about ATF interpretation of GFSZA that says you can't carry within 1000ft of a school on an out of state license.

That interpretation may or may not be valid,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 3gfsza.pdf

See paragraphs 4 and 5 on page 1.

Personal opinion...... It would be extremely unwise to OC near a school with only an out of State license.

Thank you for the link. Here is the pertinent part:

GFZA.png

ScottDLS wrote:It's only a felony if you get caught...

Which goes to the OP's original question. I am NOT advising him to carry a gun in a GFSZ because it would not be legal at all in Texas on his FL license. But that said, concealed is concealed, and barring some kind of police interaction, he would not be likely to get caught......whereas OC in a GFSZ on an out of state license is just begging for trouble.

Since we're there, I do wonder about the last sentence of "Paragraph 4" as to whether that fits for Texas - whether there is a law that "requires" law enforcement to verify that someone "is qualified under law to receive the license" as I don't believe that we have that law. I'm sure that LE thinks that they have the duty to and are allowed to see if we have a license, but is there in fact in TX a requirement for LE to determine that a CHL holder is qualified to have a CHL. Does that instead refer to that DPS to verifies eligibility to issue, and is so does DPS have an official designation as LE (that I don't find) - and I don't mean the TX Rangers, but the DPS part that reviews and grants a CHL. Otherwise, I myself read that exception as saying that it doesn't apply here. Am I misreading that?

It's not just the determination of qualification for a CHL/LTC, and yes, you are right, there is no requirement under the law for a LEO to determine if you have a license. However, remember, under HB910, a bone of contention which almost derailed passage, was the addition/removal in both house and senate of the Dutton/Huffines Amendments. Those amendments, as in OK, would have specifically prevented an LEO for asking to see your license if OC'ing, unless you had committed some offense. The Amendments were struck from the final bill, under enormous pressure from law enforcement lobbies who couched it as an LEO safety issue, and the final enrolled version of HB910 does not contain wording that prevents a LEO from asking to see your license. So while there's no requirement for them to do so, they are certainly free to do so, and in a lot of metropolitan areas, this is exactly what is going to happen.

ScottDLS wrote:The clause represented in Paragraph 4 was added due to certain states passing laws that provided "blanket authorization" any law abiding citizen to carry in a school zone. This was added, as well as the "interstate commerce" language after SCOTUS threw out the original GFSZA. The law requires that the determination be made individually before granting the permit. Therefore the Texas permit qualifies. There was a court case on this in Mississippi where the details of MS state check were questioned, but were ultimately determined to be adequate.

Glockster wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The clause represented in Paragraph 4 was added due to certain states passing laws that provided "blanket authorization" any law abiding citizen to carry in a school zone. This was added, as well as the "interstate commerce" language after SCOTUS threw out the original GFSZA. The law requires that the determination be made individually before granting the permit. Therefore the Texas permit qualifies. There was a court case on this in Mississippi where the details of MS state check were questioned, but were ultimately determined to be adequate.

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Glockster wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The clause represented in Paragraph 4 was added due to certain states passing laws that provided "blanket authorization" any law abiding citizen to carry in a school zone. This was added, as well as the "interstate commerce" language after SCOTUS threw out the original GFSZA. The law requires that the determination be made individually before granting the permit. Therefore the Texas permit qualifies. There was a court case on this in Mississippi where the details of MS state check were questioned, but were ultimately determined to be adequate.

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation.

But the TEXAS permit qualifying OC in a GFSZ in Texas doesn't address the OP's question about OC'ing in Texas on an out-of state-permit [normally totally legal] while passing through a legally mandated GFSZ [totally illegal on an out-of-state permit].

I grant you that this is a silly contradiction. If a permit is acceptable in Texas under our reciprocity agreements, then it OUGHT to be acceptable in all particulars. But that turns out not to be the case. You and I can OC in a GFSZ on our CHL/LTCs. The OP cannot on his FL permit. Sure, HB 910 assumes a 4th Amendment right against having to produce a license to an LEO simply because you're carrying, but you and I know that the 4th amendment is barely even a fig-leaf's worth of protection these days, and there are plenty of cops on the street [by no means all of them] who violate its spirit routinely because the courts [in their infinite stupidity] have given them the leeway to do so. So when OP OCs unlawfully on his FL permit through a Texas GFSZ, even though he appears to not have done anything wrong [which would be true if he had a CHL/LTC], and an LEO sees him, that LEO is highly likely to violate the spirit of the 4th and ask to see the license - EVEN THOUGH the LEO has no reason to suspect EITHER [a] that the OP has no license, or that the OP has a license from out of state. Said LEO has NO WAY OF KNOWING if the OP is carrying legally or not........EXCEPT by asking to see the license.

And he will ask. And when he does, OP is going to jail. It may not be right, but them's the facts.

The Annoyed Man wrote:
I grant you that this is a silly contradiction. If a permit is acceptable in Texas under our reciprocity agreements, then it OUGHT to be acceptable in all particulars. But that turns out not to be the case. You and I can OC in a GFSZ on our CHL/LTCs. The OP cannot on his FL permit. Sure, HB 910 assumes a 4th Amendment right against having to produce a license to an LEO simply because you're carrying, but you and I know that the 4th amendment is barely even a fig-leaf's worth of protection these days, and there are plenty of cops on the street [by no means all of them] who violate its spirit routinely because the courts [in their infinite stupidity] have given them the leeway to do so. So when OP OCs unlawfully on his FL permit through a Texas GFSZ, even though he appears to not have done anything wrong [which would be true if he had a CHL/LTC], and an LEO sees him, that LEO is highly likely to violate the spirit of the 4th and ask to see the license - EVEN THOUGH the LEO has no reason to suspect EITHER [a] that the OP has no license, or that the OP has a license from out of state. Said LEO has NO WAY OF KNOWING if the OP is carrying legally or not........EXCEPT by asking to see the license.

And he will ask. And when he does, OP is going to jail. It may not be right, but them's the facts.

This assumes two things...one) that the ATF's interpretation of the GFSZ statute is correct. Two) that the statute itself is Constitutional. Since the previous one was ruled by SCOTUS not to be, the only thing added was the "interstate commerce...." bit for the gun.

Also, state local LEO are primarily concerned that OC is compliant with state law, and do not as a matter of course enforce Federal law unless they are part of a joint task force. This is why we don't see massive numbers of MPA carry in school zone and out of state CHLs being prosecuted by US Attorneys. That, and I suspect they are not anxious to test the validity of GFSZA interpretation by ATF in federal court, especially post-Heller.

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:
I grant you that this is a silly contradiction. If a permit is acceptable in Texas under our reciprocity agreements, then it OUGHT to be acceptable in all particulars. But that turns out not to be the case. You and I can OC in a GFSZ on our CHL/LTCs. The OP cannot on his FL permit. Sure, HB 910 assumes a 4th Amendment right against having to produce a license to an LEO simply because you're carrying, but you and I know that the 4th amendment is barely even a fig-leaf's worth of protection these days, and there are plenty of cops on the street [by no means all of them] who violate its spirit routinely because the courts [in their infinite stupidity] have given them the leeway to do so. So when OP OCs unlawfully on his FL permit through a Texas GFSZ, even though he appears to not have done anything wrong [which would be true if he had a CHL/LTC], and an LEO sees him, that LEO is highly likely to violate the spirit of the 4th and ask to see the license - EVEN THOUGH the LEO has no reason to suspect EITHER [a] that the OP has no license, or that the OP has a license from out of state. Said LEO has NO WAY OF KNOWING if the OP is carrying legally or not........EXCEPT by asking to see the license.

And he will ask. And when he does, OP is going to jail. It may not be right, but them's the facts.

This assumes two things...one) that the ATF's interpretation of the GFSZ statute is correct. Two) that the statute itself is Constitutional. Since the previous one was ruled by SCOTUS not to be, the only thing added was the "interstate commerce...." bit for the gun.

Also, state local LEO are primarily concerned that OC is compliant with state law, and do not as a matter of course enforce Federal law unless they are part of a joint task force. This is why we don't see massive numbers of MPA carry in school zone and out of state CHLs being prosecuted by US Attorneys. That, and I suspect they are not anxious to test the validity of GFSZA interpretation by ATF in federal court, especially post-Heller.

locke_n_load wrote: I thought that if you are within state law but breaking federal law, you must be arrested by federal agents and brought to a federal court, correct? Only way for a local to book you on GFZA would be to hand you to a fed agent, correct?