Federal gun free school zone act of 1995

[Guest PatriotCSA]

I searched the forums and did not see that this has ever been talked about here, so please correct me if I am wrong.

I was reading up on state reciprocity of gun permits when I stumbled upon this federal law. It's called the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 (originally 1990, but was overturned). The 1995 law stuck.

What I am seeing repeatedly is that it is nearly impossible according to this federal law to actually be armed in any state, even those with easily obtained permits. This thing states that if you're armed within 1000 feet of a school (fifth of a mile is a long way!), then you are committing a federal crime. Now I don't know about you, but I pass several schools each and every day and I know of no schools that have over a thousand feet of grass between their front doors and the street.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity is CURRENTLY banned under Federal Law. (Important)

What this article states is that reciprocity is more or less invalid because of this federal law. But in all reality, even an in-state license doesn't seem to protect you as people within their own states have been prosecuted for this. Does anyone else find this absolutely absurd?

Edited October 14, 2010 by PatriotCSA
typo

[Fallguy]

As I read the law in the past, it says those with a state issued carry permit are exempt from the 1000ft rule.

So the only places that I can this applying are those that can/do carry without a permit in those states it is allowed.

Now TN says it honors out of state permits "as if issued by" TN so whether that means a TX permit is like a TN permit when it comes to the school zone, I'm not sure? But I'm also not sure if it being an out of state license makes a difference.

In the two cases cited in the other post (United States v Tait) and United States v Nieves-Castaño, neither are directly on topic about out of state permits. In fact, in the first one the charges were dismissed and uphelp as dismissed, because he had a state permit. In the second since it was in Pureto Rico...not really sure about the laws down there, but they appealed the conviction based on "void for vaguness" of the law not whether it was actually legal for her to have the weapon.

I did not read the other cases, and there may be something more to this that needs to be checked, but by no means do I think it means the reciprocity is banned by Federal Law....seems to be an attention grabbing and misleading title ....at least to me.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest guardlobo]

I think this is a bunch of nonsense. We all know what happened with states rights vs big brother in the mid 1800's. If a state allows something, the feds have a hard time doing anything about it. As the minority, we need to be careful. But, we need to make it clear to the feds that we will stand by our constitutional rights whether they allow it or our state allows it.

PS Thanks for letting me get on my soapbox and rant for a minute. I feel a little better now.

[Guest uofmeet]

I think i live within 1000ft of a school. their is one literally across the street from my house.

[Oh Shoot]

I think i live within 1000ft of a school. their is one literally across the street from my house.

You'd best go ahead and surrender to the FBI.

- OS

[Guest Archminister01]

Simple.....if the States would stand up and take ownership as they are entitled under the constitution, then the Feds dont have boo to say about the laws enacted by any state and that the federal government still should be secondary to state law. Somehow over the years the states gave in and became secondary to the federal government. Look at whats happening in AZ,,, they are fighting for their rights as a State as we speak. If the States had not gotten so dependent on the government tip, this would be a different matter. But because most everyone is ignorant of the facts or just dont care and stay along side of the rest of the sheeple..lol, we continue to deal with this type of situation.

[Guest Archminister01]

The 10th Ammendment...tells it all.

[Mechanic_X]

The 17th also changed how senators are elected and changed where their loyalties lie.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That one needs to be outright repealed, along with a couple more.

[Fallguy]

Well what really needs to happen is major reform of the BATFE if not their elimination.

At least start with doing away with the idea that interstate commerce clause allows them to control a firearm from cradel to grave. I mean they have had so much control for so long that now they think they are allowed to control any firearm...even those that have not travelled in interstate commerce.

But anyway....

[Guest rockbottom12]

I think i live within 1000ft of a school. their is one literally across the street from my house.

+1 i am beside two schools.

[Fallguy]

+1 i am beside two schools.

One of the exceptions is being on private property.

[dralarms]

Up till a few years ago we had a gun store right across the street from our highschool.

[DaveTN]

Simple.....if the States would stand up and take ownership as they are entitled under the constitution, then the Feds dont have boo to say about the laws enacted by any state and that the federal government still should be secondary to state law. Somehow over the years the states gave in and became secondary to the federal government. Look at whats happening in AZ,,, they are fighting for their rights as a State as we speak. If the States had not gotten so dependent on the government tip, this would be a different matter. But because most everyone is ignorant of the facts or just dont care and stay along side of the rest of the sheeple..lol, we continue to deal with this type of situation.

States are standing up to the Feds. It the reason the SCOTUS has not ruled that you can strap on a gun and walk down the street per the 2nd Amendment. They can’t; it’s a violation of State Rights. We fought a war over States Rights; we aren’t going to fight one over the 2nd amendment.

They have tried to fight over other things like speed limits and liquor laws; but usually give in when the Feds reduce their money. Isn’t Tennessee taking a hit on Federal highway funds so that passengers can drink in cars?

[JAB]

Somehow over the years the states gave in and became secondary to the federal government.

That 'somehow' is actually pretty straightforward, IMO. It happened when Lincoln, et al. decided to fight an unconstitutional war to make folks shut up about the idea of sovereign states once and for all. The states' rights advocates lost, the United States as our Founders envisioned it was destroyed and states were subjugated to the fedgov. Sometimes, in matters that the Fed probably doesn't consider too important, the SCOTUS will throw a bone to one state or another. However, the very fact that the final say is left to SCOTUS - a branch of the federal government whose members are appointed by the head of the federal government, the president - shows where the admirable ideologies of sovereign states and states rights (ideologies which I hold, however futile) meet the reality of a bloated, overblown, overly intricate federal government which has greedily hoarded and continues to hoard all the real power for itself and which will never give up any of its power voluntarily.

Of course, let us also not forget that even when the SCOTUS has ruled against the fedgov, it often did no good. Wasn't Lincoln told that his suspension of habeus corpus was illegal? Did that stop him? Remember, even before the Civil War, our 'good ol' Tennessee boy' president Jackson said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Edited October 15, 2010 by JAB

[Guest PatriotCSA]

That 'somehow' is actually pretty straightforward, IMO. It happened when Lincoln, et al. decided to fight an unconstitutional war to make folks shut up about the idea of sovereign states once and for all. The states' rights advocates lost, the United States as our Founders envisioned it was destroyed and states were subjugated to the fedgov. Sometimes, in matters that the Fed probably doesn't consider too important, the SCOTUS will throw a bone to one state or another. However, the very fact that the final say is left to SCOTUS - a branch of the federal government whose members are appointed by the head of the federal government, the president - shows where the admirable ideologies of sovereign states and states rights (ideologies which I hold, however futile) meet the reality of a bloated, overblown, overly intricate federal government which has greedily hoarded and continues to hoard all the real power for itself and which will never give up any of its power voluntarily.

Of course, let us also not forget that even when the SCOTUS has ruled against the fedgov, it often did no good. Wasn't Lincoln told that his suspension of habeus corpus was illegal? Did that stop him? Remember, even before the Civil War, our 'good ol' Tennessee boy' president Jackson said of a Supreme Court decision, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

All 100% on target.

[Fallguy]

Discussion on the open container law moved to new thread.....

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/47652-tn-open-container-law.html