Judges Weigh Rehaif in Metcalf’s Challenge to Gun-Free School Zone Act

AmmoLand ^ | September 16, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The challenge to the Gun Free School Zone (GFSZ) case from Billings, Montana, involving Gabriel Metcalf, has an interesting twist. The judges in the case asked the attorneys on both sides to present briefs addressing the impact on the case from Rehaif v. United States, 2019. Rehaif established a precedent that, in order to be found guilty, the defendant had to know he belonged to a category that was barred from possessing a firearm, as that was one of the elements of the crime.

As mentioned in previous articles, local officials repeatedly told Gabriel Metcalf he was not violating the law. He believed the GFSZ statute was unconstitutional.  The day before Gabriel was arrested, Billings Police Department Lt. Matt Lennick indicated the local police did not have any authority to arrest Gabriel, so they had contacted federal authorities to see what they could do. From the bozemandailychronicle.com:

While the man was not breaking any state laws in doing so, Lennick said, BPD increased their patrols in the area surrounding the school. Police also contacted federal agencies for assistance with the situation.

The briefs on the applicability of Rehaif were filed with the Court on June 30, 2025.  The Federal Defender argues it is only simple justice for the appellate court to consider that Gabriel Metcalf believed he was not breaking the law. The issue of local officials telling him he was not breaking the law was not allowed at trial by the presiding judge.

---

From the defense brief for the Appellant:

The law in 2023 told Metcalf his right to act as he did was enshrined in the United States Constitution and statutorily protected by the law of his eventual conviction.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; carry; mt; school

[marktwain]

The case against Metcalf will be overturned based on Rehaif.

[Adder]

The issue of local officials telling him he was not breaking the law was not allowed at trial by the presiding judge.

HUH???

[Yo-Yo]

The issue of local officials telling him he was not breaking the law was not allowed at trial by the presiding judge.

He was charged with a Federal offense. Local officials are not experts on Federal law, only local law, so their statement to the defendant was correct that he was not breaking the law. He was not breaking any local law.

The GFSZ Act is unconstitutional and the charges should be overturned on that basis.

[MileHi]

I’d rather they find the GFSZ unconstitutional than decide it based on Rehaif. Strike down the law.