TexasCHLforum.com

A post this morning reminded me of the 1,000 foot buffer zone around schools for those without valid carry permits in the State involved. But that got me wondering and I'd like to pose some questions.

1. Have there been any prosecutions on the 1,000 limit? I would expect that it would have to be a Federal agent because, while local LE can enforce Federal laws, the actual prosecution would have to take place in the Federal system. Am I wrong?

2. Have there been any prosecutions for Post Office gun violations by citizens?


My motivation for asking is simply curiosity. For the record, we have stopped using COE RV parks after I got my CHL not because I was worried about getting caught but because I won't knowing break the law. I'm not going to carry on Federal property except, like the open areas in the National Parks, where I'm legally allowed to do so.

It is my understanding that Federal prosecutions for gun crimes are almost non-existent. I've heard numerous references to places like Chicago where getting tough with criminal use and illegal firearms, as Bloomberg's group claims it wants to do, have had no action at the Federal level.

AFAIK, GFSZ violations are primarily undertaken as an add-on offense. People doing something else stupid and getting busted in a GFSZ.

The Post Office violation is, by US code, punishable by a $50 fine or 30 days.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2006-t ... c232-1.xml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(l) Weapons and explosives. No person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.
....................
(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both.

IANAL. This is my OPINION, not legal advice.

Likek RoyBGiv said, all the ones I have read about have been add-ons to drug busts and such.

Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on). He was acquitted at the Federal District (trial) Court, and also won at the Appellate level when the prosecution appealed.

The Feds attacked him on two fronts: 1) That he was a felon-in-possession and therefore the Georgia permit did not apply, and 2) because the Georgia permit did not require a Federal background check, the exception in the GFSZ act for permit-holders didn't apply.

Both courts rejected both arguments. Altho the guy had felony conviction(s) in Michigan (I think), under Michigan law, once sentence is served, all civil rights are restored as a matter of (by operation of) law, so he was legal to possess firearms again. Also the GFSZ act does not say a state license/permit to carry must have a Federal background check, it just says you have to have a state permit. So the feds lost on both arguments.

I had a post with a collection of previous threads on the GFSZ, but it seems to have disappeared, at least I can't find it with the search funciton like i used to be able to do.

ELB wrote:Likek RoyBGiv said, all the ones I have read about have been add-ons to drug busts and such.

Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on).

Thanks for the information. I had read some of the older threads a while back but the current DOJ, especially in the past 2 years, seems to be taking a bizarre approach to just about everything (prosecution or lack there of) and I was trying to get a sense for recent events. The news media is obviously not a good place for that kind of information. Although they do occasionally seize upon a CHL/CCW holder who is prosecuted, I guess to prove what rotten people we really are.

I've been worried that the DOJ would try to ratchet up things since the AWB didn't make it through the Congress. As long as it is only add on charges, it shouldn't be much of a concern. Apparently the municipalities are doing the same thing.

Ah. Found it:

FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act

And I was wrong about the state on the prosecution of the CHL/permit holder; it was not Georgia, it was Alabama. 202 F3d 1320 United States v. Tait

ELB wrote: the GFSZ act does not say a state license/permit to carry must have a Federal background check, it just says you have to have a state permit.

Not in so many words..... but it does say...

(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

Whatever that (underlined) means....
Does that require a background check?

RoyGBiv wrote:...
Does that require a background check?

According to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, it does not require a FEDERAL background check, which is what the US Attorney was arguing. As I remember it, both the District Court and the Court of Appeals said that since the GFSZA did not specifiy a Federal background check or other more specific language, then it was up to the State to decide what "qualified under the [State] law" means. In the case of Alabama, at least at the time of the incident, Alabama had decided "qualified" did not require a Federal background check to have a carry license.

RoyGBiv wrote:

ELB wrote: the GFSZ act does not say a state license/permit to carry must have a Federal background check, it just says you have to have a state permit.

Not in so many words..... but it does say...

(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

Whatever that (underlined) means....
Does that require a background check?

I would argue that if the state didn't think he was qualified, they wouldn't have given him the license.

Dave2 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

ELB wrote: the GFSZ act does not say a state license/permit to carry must have a Federal background check, it just says you have to have a state permit.

Not in so many words..... but it does say...

(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

Whatever that (underlined) means....
Does that require a background check?

I would argue that if the state didn't think he was qualified, they wouldn't have given him the license.

The Tait decision quoted earlier basically held that Congress left it up to the states to decide what "qualified" meant, so whatever the state requires is all that is necessary. If the Sheriff, in that case, followed the law, and there was no evidence the he did not, then Tait was qualified.

ELB wrote: Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on). He was acquitted at the Federal District (trial) Court, and also won at the Appellate level when the prosecution appealed.

.

??? Once found not guilty, the prosecution can't "appeal". That would be double jeopardy. Only defendants found guilty can appeal.

(Apparently this does not prevent the Feds from prosecuting a "not guilty" defendant for civil rights violations -- a different charge. )

sjfcontrol wrote:

ELB wrote: Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on). He was acquitted at the Federal District (trial) Court, and also won at the Appellate level when the prosecution appealed.

.

??? Once found not guilty, the prosecution can't "appeal". That would be double jeopardy. Only defendants found guilty can appeal.

(Apparently this does not prevent the Feds from prosecuting a "not guilty" defendant for civil rights violations -- a different charge. )

Perhaps the judge dismissed the charges and the prosecutor appealed?

jmra wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

ELB wrote: Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on). He was acquitted at the Federal District (trial) Court, and also won at the Appellate level when the prosecution appealed.

.

??? Once found not guilty, the prosecution can't "appeal". That would be double jeopardy. Only defendants found guilty can appeal.

(Apparently this does not prevent the Feds from prosecuting a "not guilty" defendant for civil rights violations -- a different charge. )

Perhaps the judge dismissed the charges and the prosecutor appealed?

Tait was dismissed by the district court upon motion by the defendant. The appeal was from the judgment entered on the order, not from a verdict. No jeopardy.

JALLEN wrote:

jmra wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

ELB wrote: Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on). He was acquitted at the Federal District (trial) Court, and also won at the Appellate level when the prosecution appealed.

.

??? Once found not guilty, the prosecution can't "appeal". That would be double jeopardy. Only defendants found guilty can appeal.

(Apparently this does not prevent the Feds from prosecuting a "not guilty" defendant for civil rights violations -- a different charge. )

Perhaps the judge dismissed the charges and the prosecutor appealed?

Tait was dismissed by the district court upon motion by the defendant. The appeal was from the judgment entered on the order, not from a verdict. No jeopardy.

Figured that was the case. Thanks for clarifying.

JALLEN wrote:

jmra wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

ELB wrote: Some time ago, I found one case where a CHL holder in Georgia was prosecuted for having a pistol in a GFSZ, and the Federal charges were only about the pistol in GFSZ (i.e., it was not an add-on). He was acquitted at the Federal District (trial) Court, and also won at the Appellate level when the prosecution appealed.

.

??? Once found not guilty, the prosecution can't "appeal". That would be double jeopardy. Only defendants found guilty can appeal.

(Apparently this does not prevent the Feds from prosecuting a "not guilty" defendant for civil rights violations -- a different charge. )

Perhaps the judge dismissed the charges and the prosecutor appealed?

Tait was dismissed by the district court upon motion by the defendant. The appeal was from the judgment entered on the order, not from a verdict. No jeopardy.

Yes, I should have said "dismissed," not "acquitted." Wasn't thinking, bad word choice.