Wyoming gun owners could violate federal law

trib.com ^ | 11 July, 2011 | JOAN BARRON

[NVDave]

Well, yes, in that Clinton signed the law.

But the real instigator here was Herb Kohl. Snarlin’ Arlen was a co-sponsor.

[Loyal Sedition]

This is a “Law” SCOTUS already overturned once!

The Klinton regime’s congress just passed a very slightly amended version and carried on as if nothing had happened.
Succeeding administrations of both parties have ignored this feculent travesty.

You can look forward to the current regime enforcing it with zeal.

And, what about those who live less than a thousand feet from school grounds, do they lose their RKBA and ability to defend themselves?

Freeways and major surface streets pass directly by, or even through, MANY schools.

[ApplegateRanch]

If you have a permit to carry the gun, issued from the state you are in.

Have to wonder what effect this would have on the state granted "full reicprocity rights" of non-residents who do have a locally recognized permit from their home state.

[moshiach]

It is only a gun free zone for the law abiding citizen :/

[SUSSA]

It isn’t just people in Wyoming who need to worry. Many States now allow citizens to carry a loaded gun in their car without a permit.

[SF_Redux]

how does that play out for hunters?

[marktwain]

Or else what? He DID realize he was in a separate branch of government, didn't he?

The MSM was fully behind him. Internet was in its infancy. The situation was similar to today, where the Congress was run by Republicans (but with a smaller majority and lots of RINOs) and the government was going to shut down if they did not pass a continuing resolution or some such.

He threatened to veto the resolution and shut down the government and blame it on the Republicans if they did not pass the bill. The MSM (the real power behind the throne) backed him to the hilt.

The Republicans caved, not unexpectedly. They had very little media, and what they had was not focused on this issue.

To blame the congress for this is like blaming a whipped dog for cringing when he sees the lash.

I have said this many times. We have been living under a mediacracy for decades, instead of a Republic. We are just starting to come out from under it.

[muawiyah]

Definitely. That’s the loophole in the federal law ~ that you have a license. At the same time seems to me the federal law about which everyone is concerned doesn’t stand up to the standards in Heller v.

[Neoliberalnot]

There is a law to trap every citizen if he/she is designated an enemy of the state. No one can go through life now without breaking some law. Selective enforcement of the law is used when deemed necessary to trap any enemy of the state. If this is not enough, UN laws will extend this ability to trap the average enemy of the people.

[redgolum]

There are a lot of busy streets right out side a school. Not to mention those who live within the 1000 foot range.

Most cops have told me not to worry about it.

[stevie_d_64]

My wife is on a road trip, she just left this morning...

She has a Texas CHL, and is traveling through states we have reciprocity with, including Wyoming...

I have a good feeling she is fine in this regard, due to the reciprocity agreement between Texas and Wyoming...

So I do not believe she’ll be in any violation, if she pays attention to the laws in that state...

[Still Thinking]

OK, I understand better. Thanks for the background.

[mvpel]

Any damn idiot can read the law and see within moments that their living rooms within a thousand feet of a school are not encompassed by the law. The law is bad enough without whipping up baseless hysteria.

[Condor51]

Wyoming gun owners could violate federal law

The U.S. Supreme Court, he noted, ruled the law unconstitutional but Congress passed it again. ... “It’s been ignored ever since it passed,” Spungin said. “I don’t see it being an issue here.”

So Congress passed a new law for the one SCOTUS previously struck down (which was Di-Fi's pet law). So good going Brainac Dems, that's showin' 'em, ya morons. (I knew of SCOTUS's ruling, didn't know the morons passed it again.

In any case its not only Wyoming folks theoretically affected, but anyone, like me. As I live well within 1,000 feet of Two Schools. And to get from our sub-division to any major road I have to drive right past Two Schools again.

And I know that this Unconstitutional Law is being ignored as the nice people at the BATF have been renewing my Class 03 C&R license like forever - which my Chief of Police has to allow the renewal to go trough, and the IL State Police keep renewing my IL gun owner FOID card. So I have a feeling (/s) that all LEOs from the Feds to local PDs know this 'law' ain't worth spit.

But I am surprised at the gall of the Dems in passing it again as Di-Fi was 'scolded' by SCOTUS, to wit: 'The Commerce Clause doesn't pertain to everything'. A polite way of saying 'Knock it off with the abuse of that clause'.

Plus. If this 'law' had any teeth you can bet the rent there wouldn't be a Long Gun in Chicago as Schools are everywhere now. (Rifles and Shotguns were always okay to own, just no 'assault rifles' or handguns. Oops, and no BB-Guns and Cap Pistols too)

[MileHi]

Here is what I found:

Title 18 of the United States Code section 922(q) contains the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995, which prohibits the possession of a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reason to believe, is a school zone. The statute defines a school zone as the grounds of a public, parochial or private elementary or secondary school, or within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a public, parochial or private elementary or secondary school. The ban on firearm possession does not apply: (a) if the possession is on private property outside the school grounds; (b) if the firearm is properly licensed; (c) if the firearm is unloaded and in a locked container or on a locked firearms rack mounted on a vehicle; (d) if possession of the firearm is for use in a program approved by the school; (d) if possession of the firearm is in connection with a contract between the school and the possessor or his employer; (e) if the possession is by a law enforcement officer on official duty; or (f) if the firearm is unloaded and the person in possession is traveling through the school zone to gain access to public or private hunting lands.

As I read this, any one of exceptions (a) through (f) negate the ban on possession.

So (b) if the firearm is properly licensed, is an exception to the possession ban. My state does not “register” or “license” firearms. All of my firearms are “properly licensed”, that is, not at all as required.

Then there is (a) if the possession is on private property outside the school grounds. My vehicle passing by a school is “private property outside the school grounds”.

What say you FReepers?

[Blueflag]

You wrote “It is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.”

And what are the LAST FOUR WORDS of the second amendment?

” ... shall not be infringed.”

TO NOT CARRY IS TO CHOOSE TO BE DEFENSELESS.

TO BE PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING IS TO DELIBERATELY CAUSE YOU TO BE DEFENSELESS.

[MeganC]

“Bill Clinton’s Legacy.”

Don’t you mean ‘lunacy’?

[ForGod'sSake]

It never dawns on these do gooder clowns, that criminals pay no attention to laws like this.

I've seen enough of your posts over the years to suspect you don't REALLY believe what you wrote. That is, these tin-pot tyrants-in-waiting know EXACTLY what they're doing with gun restrictions. Law abiding people will generally comply while their constituents, the criminal element, will skip along as if there is no law. In fact, to them, there's not. The criminal enterprise that is dimocrat party and their apparatchiks make laws for the....law abiding. I don't believe they have any illusions about the law actually applying to them. Under erica holder that has been made abundantly clear.

[DoughtyOne]

It never dawns on these do gooder clowns, that criminals pay no attention to laws like this.

I've seen enough of your posts over the years to suspect you don't REALLY believe what you wrote. That is, these tin-pot tyrants-in-waiting know EXACTLY what they're doing with gun restrictions. Law abiding people will generally comply while their constituents, the criminal element, will skip along as if there is no law. In fact, to them, there's not. The criminal enterprise that is dimocrat party and their apparatchiks make laws for the....law abiding. I don't believe they have any illusions about the law actually applying to them. Under erica holder that has been made abundantly clear.

I may have been inarticulate with my comments, but I agree with your take on the Democrats/Leftists.  They want us disarmed.  It's not about public safety.

The people I'm trying to jab in the ribs, are the spineless Republicans always looking for a way to look "reasoned" to the public.  They don't defend our rights.  They are more than willing to dismember our rights if they think they can get away with it.  That top sentence applies to them too.  Why pass those laws if they don't deter crime?  The Republicans who help pass them don't have an answer.

They're supposed to be on our side.  I'm tired of being sold out.