Page 1 of 4
Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:24 pm
by WildRose
Kevin Winkle who was arrested a couple of weeks back on charges of unlawful carry in a prohibited place IE a School and for making threats to parishoners has been rearrested on federal charges.
https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/fed ... o-st-marys
Now I feel no sympathy for this man but it raises an interesting question at least in my mind.
We can now lawfully carry on school grounds with a permit in Texas including public and private elementary and secondary schools right up to the entrance to the building or location of a school event.
Are we now in conflict with federal law relative to the Safe Schools Act under which he's now facing federal charges?
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:36 pm
by The Annoyed Man
Not mentioned in the article was whether or not he had a LTC.....at least that I saw. So the question is only relevant IF he had one. If not, then it answers itself.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:38 pm
by ScottDLS
If he has a Texas LTC the first part of the Federal charge is going to go nowhere. The second part about being an unlawful user of illegal drugs in possession of a firearm is kind of lame, but maybe they make it stick.
This guy is an idiot. Maybe he's smoked too much of the wacky weed.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:37 pm
by WildRose
ScottDLS wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:38 pm
If he has a Texas LTC the first part of the Federal charge is going to go nowhere. The second part about being an unlawful user of illegal drugs in possession of a firearm is kind of lame, but maybe they make it stick.
This guy is an idiot. Maybe he's smoked too much of the wacky weed.
Reading the charging documents the latter seems to be the case. I can't find anything yet on whether or not he had an LTC.
Either way I'm wondering if State law is now in conflict with federal law because federal law makes no allowance for licensed carry, only LEO's and Licensed Security Officers on the job.
I'm sort of wondering if this is just a case of the fed's throwing charges because they can?
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm
by ELB
I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm
by WildRose
ELB wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm
I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:52 pm
by WildRose
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm
ELB wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm
I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?
I found this quoted on GOA's website so apparently you are correct.
THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun free zones" law exempts CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What this so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the authorities as a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon in his or her car.
https://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm
I actually thought this law had been thoroughly gutted vial the Lopez decision but apparently parts of it are still very much in force.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:54 pm
by WildRose
From Wiki, the exemptions.
Exceptions
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(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;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(B):
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(3)(A)] does not apply to the discharge of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program;
(iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or
(iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_ ... Exceptions
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:55 pm
by WildRose
That pretty answers my own question... .
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:11 pm
by ScottDLS
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm
ELB wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm
I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?
From your later post.
(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;
There is no mention of the exemption not applying due to some other law being broken, so if the guy has a Texas LTC, then I think the US is going to lose that part of the case.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:12 pm
by ELB
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm
I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?
No sorry as I said I’m on my phone, very tedious to search and cut and paste. Not unusual for various exemptions to to be applicable only if not otherwise committing a crime, so just speculating, but looks like you found answer.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:21 pm
by ELB
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:52 pm
I actually thought this law had been thoroughly gutted vial the Lopez decision but apparently parts of it are still very much in force.
It was, but congress added words about interstate commerce and passed it again.
8
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:46 pm
by WildRose
ScottDLS wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:11 pm
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm
ELB wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm
I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?
From your later post.
(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;
There is no mention of the exemption not applying due to some other law being broken, so if the guy has a Texas LTC, then I think the US is going to lose that part of the case.
I did some checking just a few minutes ago with one of my more reliable sources in Amarillo.
Apparently they are using his drug use and possession to invalidate his exemption and his LTC completely thus making him completely in violation.
Re: Interesting Twist on Amarillo Man St. Mary's Catholic Church Arrest
Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:46 pm
by WildRose
ELB wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:21 pm
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:52 pm
I actually thought this law had been thoroughly gutted vial the Lopez decision but apparently parts of it are still very much in force.
It was, but congress added words about interstate commerce and passed it again.
Ahh, that must have been the 92 revision.
Re: 8
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:25 am
by ScottDLS
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:46 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:11 pm
WildRose wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:49 pm
ELB wrote: Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 pm
I’m on my phone, which makes it really hard to look up stuff, but while the GFSZA House and exemption for license to carry, it may not apply if the person is engaging in an illegal activity.
I'm unaware of such an exemption other than for LEO's and Security. Have you by chance got a link?
From your later post.
(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;
There is no mention of the exemption not applying due to some other law being broken, so if the guy has a Texas LTC, then I think the US is going to lose that part of the case.
I did some checking just a few minutes ago with one of my more reliable sources in Amarillo.
Apparently they are using his drug use and possession to invalidate his exemption and his LTC completely thus making him completely in violation.
I don't really see how that works since the "LTC" exemption to the school prohibition has no language relating to drugs anywhere in it.
My guess is the Feds are in on this to deflect criticism from the Texas church shooting where they dropped the ball on the NICS check. I'm not sure they'd want to retry
Lopez on this fact pattern, but doubt this case is going anywhere near SCOTUS.
This guy is some kind of idiot though.