the actual law for...

[Hi Plainsman]

I wonder if "unloaded" is interpreted as an "empty gun," or without possession of ammo????? More directly can you have an "unloaded gun" locked up, and magazine with ammo?

I guess its really a non issue for CHL's

[seamusTX]

The literal text of the law, 18 USC 922(q)(1), is "not loaded."

Since no definition of loaded is given, I would think that meant that the firearm did not contain any ammunition within the chamber, magazine, or cylinder in the case of a revolver.

- Jim

[TexasComputerDude]

Why can't the law be written for idiots, with pictures

[seamusTX]

IMHO, many federal laws are written loosely, so that more prosecutions are possible.

Whether this is planned or just due to carelessness, I don't know. Probably both in different cases.

- Jim

[Hi Plainsman]

Why can't the law be written for idiots, with pictures

The law was originally intended to be written for the "common man" to understand. The founders of this nation intended for laws to be simple, in their minds it was hard for a man to follow a law he didn't understand.

And then we got lawyers, who decided to ensure themselves job security by making laws undercernible.

I disagree with the idea that federal laws are written loosely for the intent to "make more convictions," I believe they are broad to cover things that they could not have imagined might occur.

[srothstein]

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the federal law applies in this case. If we are talking about a college campus, I think the federal law defines schools as elementary and secondary, not colleges.

[Hi Plainsman]

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the federal law applies in this case. If we are talking about a college campus, I think the federal law defines schools as elementary and secondary, not colleges.

I noticed that too, I just assumed at trial they would argue that College was a degree of "Secondary"

[seamusTX]

The definition of school zone is cleverly hidden in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b):

(25) The term "school zone" means - (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. (26) The term "school" means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

Probably the term secondary is defined somewhere as grades 9 through 12. Remember that federal law treats primary and secondary schools differently from colleges in many ways.

Also colleges and vocational training schools are commonly called "post-secondary."

All of this discussion is just that until an appeals court rules.

- Jim

[suthdj]

If I am attending a county college isn't that Govt owned property can they deny storing in your car while you attend class? My tax dollar goes to help pay for the school.

[seamusTX]

There are two aspects here:

1. It is not a crime to store your weapon in your vehicle on the premises of a public school. However, the statutes are just a stack of dead trees until a judge tells someone to follow them. That rarely happens.

2. Any organization can make rules for employees, students, or customers that result in some kind of discipline or penalty outside the judicial system. A simple example is the dress code. There is no law against wearing any kind of clothing, but schools can set dress codes and discipline students for violating them. Restaurants generally do not allow people to enter without shoes or shirts, or to bring in pets (not service animals).

- Jim

[Sangiovese]

Why can't the law be written for idiots, with pictures

The law was originally intended to be written for the "common man" to understand. The founders of this nation intended for laws to be simple, in their minds it was hard for a man to follow a law he didn't understand.

And then we got lawyers, who decided to ensure themselves job security by making laws undercernible.

I disagree with the idea that federal laws are written loosely for the intent to "make more convictions," I believe they are broad to cover things that they could not have imagined might occur.

I believe you meant politicians.... lawyers don't make the laws. If the politicians would write and pass laws that everyone could understand, then it wouldn't take a law degree and a dozen case studys to understand an individual statute.

They have a bad enough rep... no need to pin the transgressions of the politicos on them as well.

[ELB]

Doesn't the Federal Gun Free Zone require you to be licensed by your state?

It does. Otherwise the firearm must be unloaded and locked in a case or rack (both conditions are required).

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.

I have to quibble a bit with Seamus/Jim on two points (as I have quibbled before ). 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....

[ScottDLS]

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.

elb -

I have enjoyed your informed posts on this issue on several threads where this has been brought up. Your analysis is thoughtful and has increased my understanding of this issue.

I seem to remember in the original GFSZA Supreme Court case that the justices were very suspicious of the nexus with interstate commerce as it related to the law at the time, particularly Justice Scalia and also Justice Kennedy. Basically there was none... so they used that in their rejection of the act. However, Congress just inserted a line or two about the firearm having traveled in interstate commerce, which almost every one does. Of the two circuits that you cited where the current law has been upheld...the 9th is notoriously liberal. The 5th circuit which includes Texas has previously ruled more favorably on other gun rights cases including one on the bar to individuals under a "domestic restraining order" possessing firearms. I think the interstate commerce nexus might be vulnerable in the 5th circuit. I also think there is a reasonable line of attack on the "out of state" license issue in that a state's reciprocal recognition of another's license could be considered being licensed by the state.

I agree with your interpretation of the act applying only to Primary and Secondary schools and not colleges/universities.

-Scott

[KD5NRH]

I believe you meant politicians.... lawyers don't make the laws.

Lawyers are grossly overrepresented in every significant legislative body.

IMO, it's a conflict of interest for them anyway: write the laws to be confusing and overly broad, then charge people for the clarification.

[57Coastie]

Why can't the law be written for idiots, with pictures

Howdy, Dude. I exercise my right of response to ask "why can't computer instructions be written for idiots, with pictures? Might there be a little job protection at play here, too?"

Jim