I have to quibble a bit with Seamus/Jim on two points (as I have quibbled beforeseamusTX wrote:It does. Otherwise the firearm must be unloaded and locked in a case or rack (both conditions are required).Hi Plainsman wrote:Doesn't the Federal Gun Free Zone require you to be licensed by your state?
However, that law is never prosecuted against anyone who is not committing some other crime, like assault or drug dealing. An earlier version of it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, and it's quite likely that it would be struck down again if they tried to enforce it.
- Jim
P.S.: Edited to correct earlier incorrect statement.
). Point the first: while almost all the examples I have found WRT to prosecutions of the most recent GFSZA are indeed as part of prosecution of greater crimes (e.g. drug dealing), I do not believe that means it would never be prosecuted against someone's whose gun possession came to police notice in a less criminal way -- say a teacher or parent who parked in a high school parking lot who got ratted out by someone unhappy with them (and the teacher or parent does not have a CHL or other GFSZA exception). It would depend on how interested the police and the federal jurisdiction are in making an example. It is not a risk I would run lightly.Point the second: GFSZA violations have been successfully prosecuted in several different parts of the country; the convictions were appealed; and none of the appeals (that I am aware of) were successful. In two cases that I know of -- in the 8th and 9th circuit courts -- the appeals were based on violation of the commerce clause (i.e. constitutionality) and both were rejected. In at least six other cases, other grounds were used -- i.e. they didn't even bother trying to argue it was unconstitutional -- and those appeals were rejected as well. The only successful appeal I am aware of was successful because the courts agreed tha the charged individual did in fact fit within one of the GFSZA exceptions, which is hardly a challenge to the law itself. Given that Congress has been pretty successful at regulating pretty much everything else under the Sun by claiming "interstate commerce," I don't see any successful challenge to the GFSZA unless/until there is a major sea change on the court about the whole commerce clause issue. And I don't see that at all. Would love to be wrong.
I do agree with seamus that many laws are constructed to maximize the prosecution's ability to get conviction through some means. We can't prove you were doing anything genuinely illegal with that gun, so we will make it illegal for dang near anyone to have a gun. That makes it much easier to get some kind of conviction.
Oh, and while I am at it -- about whether a college counts as a school in the GFSZA -- I do not believe it does. As to the federal definition of primary or secondary school -- the feds seem to leave that to the state, if you look at the law quoted earlier: "(26) The term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law." (Emphasis added).
Now you can print out my comments and seamus's comments and keep them with you, but I doubt either will do you much good if you get caught without a legal exception and some federale decides to press the issue. This is only my pontificating, IANAL and all that good stuff....