ELB wrote:Two comments:ScottDLS wrote:True, however if you read these cases, they're almost all "pile on" charges when the gun carrier was doing something else wrong. ...Hoi Polloi wrote:The all-knowing WikipediaLiberty wrote:I think its worthy to note that not one single person has been tried or convicted under the Federal Gun free zone thing.says that several have been tried under it and all have lost.
In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v Dorsey the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised 1995 version of the law.
Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 include:
...
United States v Tait (2000)
...
First, if Wikipedia really lists US vs. Tait as upholding a conviction, it is seriously wrong. Just the opposite happened. Tait was charged and tried by the Feds for having a gun in a school zone, but he was NOT convicted because he had a concealed handgun permit from Alabama (where the school zone was). It was the prosectors that appealed to the circuit court, arguing that the trial court erred because a) Tait had been convicted as a felon in another state and thus was ineligible to have a gun, much less a permit; and b) even if he was eligible, Alabama's concealed handgun permit process was not "good enough" to qualify for the exemption in the GFSZA because a federal background check was not required. The Feds lost on both counts: Tait's full rights had been restored by the previous state, and the appellate court ruled that the GFSZA simply called for a concealed carry permit, it did not specify any minimums.
The GFSZA (this is the second version) was not an issue at the trial or the appeal. It was simply accepted as the law. Many people have been convicted under it. When Congress added "interstate commerce" to the law, Lopez went away. Many people convicted of other crimes have tried to use Lopez as a lever to get there convictions tossed, but none succeeded that I know of. "Interstate commerce" are "magic constitutional words" as far as the ciruit courts are concerned.
Second, US vs Tait is an example of the GFSZA NOT being applied as a "pile-on," at least by the Feds. Its violation was the only thing Tait was charged with -- by the Feds. However, he came to their attention somehow because there was an incident on school property where he said to have held his gun to someone body (neck, I think). I have never been able to find if he was charged by the locals with something, or what the exact details that incident were.
More GFSZA goodness here:
FAQ: Gun Free School Zone Act
Tait was an example of where the constitutionality of GFSZA did not come up. And I call it a "pile on" because the circumstances were such that he was holding a gun to some kid's head (or something to that effect) that easily could have resulted in state charges. I'll bet it was turned over to the Feds because they thought they could get a "no parole" federal conviction.
The other cases were...Federal jurisdictions like PR and USVI. In one the defendant had an unregistered machine gun. I don't see US attorneys putting it to the test by busting someone that was minding their own business driving through a school zone with a reciprocal license. Also a GFSZA case hasn't reached the 5th circuit (which we're in) yet. GFSZA #1 was struck down by the fifth circuit and that decision upheld by SCOTUS. Other circuits have upheld GFSZA #2, but I don't think recently (i.e. post Heller & McDonald).
