Arrested for Gun on Private Property Across From School

[Ben]

This is an interesting one. Reading between the lines, this fella probably wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but that shouldn't have anything to do with the law if he was law-abiding while being stupid, which it seems he was.

https://youtu.be/AJUWWMo_cSE

BLUF: Guy is in fear of his gangbanger neighbor, so carries a single shot shotgun when out in his yard. Said yard is across the street from a school. He is arrested by ATF for having a gun in a school zone. As part of the arrest, a warrant was issued and the ATF confiscated the shotgun and six rounds of ammo. It seems he was following Montana law, but somehow the feds stepped in. He is still in jail, no bail.

These "school zone" laws are stupid. If you want to have a "gun free zone" for schools, it shouldn't begin until the school's property boundary. This one just hits a chord with me, because when I was living in CA, I lived within the "1000 foot buffer" of a school (the law went into affect after I moved there). Obviously I owned guns. Just because of the liberal area that I lived, I was always careful about using discrete bags when carrying guns from the condo to my car when I went to the range, as I was always afraid of that law screwing me.

[K Frame]

I used to worry about this quite a bit because my house is directly across the street from an elementary school.

Then I decided *expletive deleted*ck it, they made the law after I moved into the house, so... whatever.

[WLJ]

These "school zone" laws are stupid. If you want to have a "gun free zone" for schools, it shouldn't begin until the school's property boundary. This one just hits a chord with me, because when I was living in CA, I lived within the "1000 foot buffer" of a school (the law went into affect after I moved there). Obviously I owned guns. Just because of the liberal area that I lived, I was always careful about using discrete bags when carrying guns from the condo to my car when I went to the range, as I was always afraid of that law screwing me.

Lets not forget that results in a 2000ft dia circle around the school. Bet if you grabbed a map of the schools in most cities and started drawing 2000ft dia circles around every school a good chunk of the city would be covered and make it darn near impossible to navigate the city

Not to change the subject but wasn't it Chicago that tried to enact a 1000yd gun free school zone? Basically if you drew a 1000yd radius circle with it's center point at every school in Chicago, thus making a 2000yd dia circle, it would have made something like 99% of the city a "gun free" school zone.

[cordex]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#q_2_A

B Subparagraph A does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
i. on private property not part of school grounds;

Must have been an issue because he went out onto the sidewalk?

[Pb]

That stupid, unconstitutional law has likely made millions of people unconvicted felons without knowing about it.

[WLJ]

That stupid, unconstitutional law has likely made millions of people unconvicted felons without knowing about it.

Probably nearly all gun owners

[cordex]

Probably nearly all gun owners

Except the ones with state issued carry permits.

On the other hand, many of those are for handguns specifically. I’m not sure how that would play out in court where the charge was relating to a long arm.

[Ben]

Except the ones with state issued carry permits.

On the other hand, many of those are for handguns specifically. I’m not sure how that would play out in court where the charge was relating to a long arm.

I don't know if it matters legally, but MT is permitless carry.

[WLJ]

https://ballotpedia.org/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is a federal law signed by President George H. W. Bush on November 29, 1990, that established criminal penalties for possessing or discharging a firearm in a school zone. The legislation included certain exceptions, such as for the discharge of a firearm by law enforcement officers. The law was amended following the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Lopez, which ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Following the United States v. Lopez decision, the law was amended to limit application to guns affected by interstate or foreign commerce

Provisions
Federalism
Federalism Icon 200x200.png
•Key terms
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• Federalism by the numbers
• Index of articles about federalism

The Gun-Free School Zones Act amended Title 18 of the federal criminal code to prohibit the possession or discharge of a firearm in a school zone. Individuals who violated the act were to be subject to a maximum of $5,000 in fines and/or a maximum of five years in prison.[1]

For the purposes of the law, a school zone was defined as "in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

Exceptions

The Gun-Free School Zones Act listed several exceptions in which the law did not apply. These exceptions primarily included law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity and the use of a firearm as part of a school program. The list of exceptions included:
“    (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 obtain 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) which is--

        `(I) not loaded; and
        `(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack which is in 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.[5]

   ”
—Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990

do note there is a private property exception

But also note that according to the underlined a permit holder may only process a firearm within the 1k ft rule if it is both unloaded and contained within a lock storage .

[Ben]

Huh. My mistake. I thought the law went into effect after I moved, but I didn't move into the place in Santa Barbara until 1995.

[cordex]

But also note that according to the underlined a permit holder may only process a firearm within the 1k ft rule if it is both unloaded and contained within a lock storage .

As worded the exceptions (indicated by lower case roman numerals) are independent, not cumulative.  If they were cumulative they'd only cover a law enforcement officer with an unloaded gun in a locked container on private property, while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands, etc. etc.

[WLJ]

As worded the exceptions (indicated by lower case roman numerals) are independent, not cumulative.  If they were cumulative they'd only cover a law enforcement officer with an unloaded gun in a locked container on private property, while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands, etc. etc.

 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 obtain 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) which is--

        `(I) not loaded; and
        `(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack which is in a motor vehicle;

I'm reading that as if you're within a school zone the firearm must be unloaded and locked up even with a permit.

Then further down

(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

Law enforcement is exempt while on duty

[WLJ]

The school system here (Ky) generally ignores the 1k rule and also gives an exemption if dropping off/picking up your children. The antis have had their panties all twisted up in knots over this saying federal law does not allow this, so far the state has told them to go pound sand, If the feds stepped in, increasing likely with this admin, not sure how that would play out.

[cordex]

Your link screws up the formatting, which is probably why you're still misreading it.  There are seven independent exceptions.  Exception iii describing an unloaded firearm either in a locked case or locked rack in a vehicle is not related to exception ii which relates to licenses to carry or posses a firearm subject to verified qualifications.

The points I and II under exception iii are connected by "and" therefore they are cumulative within that exception, however they don't apply to other exceptions.

[WLJ]

Okay, straight from the bill https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/gun-free-school-zones-act-1990

(1) IN GENERAL.-Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
l/(q)(l)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has
reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
I/(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of a·
firearm-
"(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
/I(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 oft:he State or political
subdivision requires that, before an individual obtain 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;
lI(iii) which is-
11(1) not loaded; and
I/(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack
which is on a motor vehicle:
/I(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a
school 1n the school zone:
/I(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;
/I(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity: or
"(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an illdividual 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.
"(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), it shall be unlaw-
ful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for' the
safety of another, to discharge or attempt to d

[WLJ]

Think coping and pasting is screwing up some of the formatting so I took a screen shot.
Locked is highlight because I was searching for that word

Looks the same to me unless I'm being an idiot this morning. Not an uncommon occurrence 

[AZRedhawk44]

https://ballotpedia.org/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act



But also note that according to the underlined a permit holder may only process a firearm within the 1k ft rule if it is both unloaded and contained within a lock storage .

Given that all small roman numeral clauses are independent of each other, and B(ii) makes no mention of the state of whether the firearm is loaded or not (nor discriminates between handgun or long gun), a State issued CCW should allow you to traverse a school zone with a loaded firearm.  No subsequent clause modifies B(ii) or establishes that the unloaded status is mandatory for all sub-clauses.

[WLJ]

Given that all small roman numeral clauses are independent of each other, and B(ii) makes no mention of the state of whether the firearm is loaded or not (nor discriminates between handgun or long gun), a State issued CCW should allow you to traverse a school zone with a loaded firearm.  No subsequent clause modifies B(ii) or establishes that the unloaded status is mandatory for all sub-clauses.

The "which is" connects them in my mind at least by basically saying any firearms carried by the above. First it says who may process a firearm in the zone then it lays down what condition that firearm needs to be in. At least that's how I'm interpreting  it.

[WLJ]

Thought just occurred to me, maybe this could be a screw up in how the bill is structured or even an intentional legal trap

[RocketMan]

The (iii) clause is the one that allows anyone to transport a legally owned firearm through a school zone as long as it is unloaded and properly secured in their vehicle.  It is not linked to, nor does it modify any of the other clauses.

[AZRedhawk44]

The "which is" connects them in my mind at least by basically saying any firearms carried by the above. First it says who may process a firearm in the zone then it lays down what condition that firearm needs to be in. At least that's how I'm interpreting  it.

Except each small roman numeral clause is an interchangeable extension of clause B.

i - firearm on private property
ii - firearm if the individual
iii (I) - firearm which is not loaded; and in a locked container


Grammatically, iii (I) and iii (II) should be written solely as point iii as a single constraint.

[cordex]

The "which is" connects them in my mind at least by basically saying any firearms carried by the above. First it says who may process a firearm in the zone then it lays down what condition that firearm needs to be in. At least that's how I'm interpreting  it.

"Which is" applies to "firearm":

Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the possession of a firearm-
[...]
iii which is-
  I not loaded; and
  II in a locked container, or a locked firearms rackwhich is on a motor vehicle:

Each exception can be read independently as an extension of the phrase "shall not apply to the possession of a firearm ..."

[WLJ]

Except each small roman numeral clause is an interchangeable extension of clause B.

i - firearm on private property
ii - firearm if the individual
iii (I) - firearm which is not loaded; and in a locked container


Grammatically, iii (I) and iii (II) should be written solely as point iii as a single constraint.

I see that now but also see my post above #18

[cordex]

I see that now but also see my post above #18

What do you think is screwed up or a legal trap?

I don't think it's a wonderfully worded bill, and it doesn't account for constitutional carry and some other scenarios, but I'm not really following you.

[WLJ]

Now admittedly the moment I see legalese my eyes glaze over and my brain shuts down but "I see the blind man" applies here and I was having an idiot moment in not making the necessary  connects. I had a ruff night, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.