Posted on 07/13/2011 7:42:14 PM PDT by marktwain
A hearty AMEN brother(or sister)! More truth in that statement than not. In addition to cheer leading for dims, RINOs will grovel at their feet to get the occasional pat on the head. Nanny state media is a nice fit. The few that survive the assault from the "new" media will always have jobs. Even a nanny state needs a Ministry of Propaganda, no?
Living room, maybe. But head out to your shop in the back yard with that Remington 700 to work on it - and you had better watch out.
There! Who will then sell it to the public. ;^)
Big government advocates, that is, advocates for progressing beyond our inadequate and out-dated Constitution. How is this not treason???
I don’t consider it treason because I don’t believe it meets the strict interpretation, but I do believe it is a breach of their oath of office, and they should be removed for just cause.
You're no fun!!!
I have been told I’m sort of a buzz-kill. It has been decades though. LOL
False.
It's also false on your neighbor's property.
"Private property not part of school grounds."
I live within 100 yds of a school....I have many guns. Some loaded. I guess I’m a criminal....And so are my neighbors...
It has been, and been upheld. Think the federal GFSZ law is unenforced? Think Again
Some of the cases aren't on point, but at least one of them is.
Just move the school. Problem solved!
Found two specific cites that do contain challenges to the post-Lopez GFSZA, 18 USC 922(q):
US v Danks, 221 F3d 1037 (8th Cir. 1999), where a federal grand jury charged Danks with possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(A); and the 8th Circuit upheld the charge against a challenge that the statute was unconstitutional.
There is also US v Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000) (indictment dismissed on grounds other than defect in federal jurisdiction).
Nope. She may be in good shape, due to reluctance on the part of the feds to press charges, but if enters a school zone with a firearm, in a state other than the one that issued her permission to exercise a constitutional right, she's committing a federal felony.
18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) contains the operative statutory language.
(B) Subparagraph (A) [unlawful to possess in a school zone] does not apply to the possession of a firearm -
(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 obtains 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; ...
But the case wasn’t taken to SCOTUS... that’s the difference.
Your permission (right to carry without being personally vetted by law enforcement in your state) does not meet the requirements of the exception. Here is the text of the exception at 18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii):
(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 obtains 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
There is no right to have a case heard before SCOTUS. Could be (I think likely, but don't know for sure), in the cases of Danks and Tait, that defendants petitioned for cert, and were denied.
SCOTUS blew off decades of misapplication of Presser; and is continuing its process of blowing off misapplication of Miller.
That one I know for a fact, having followed the various Hamblen case decisions, including petition for cert. (denied), where Hamblen pointed out that the Heller Court's interpretation of Miller is at odds with what Miller says. Says the Circuit, "Heller controls the application of Miller," without so much as acknowledging that Heller's version of Miller is at odds with Miller.
Anyway, IIRC, your contention was that the GFSZA hadn't been challenged. I provided counterexamples to that contention. Not to "score points" or anything, just as a matter of fact pointing out that the Courts are inclined to uphold the post-Lopez GFSZ Act; and have, in fact, upheld it against challenge.
You are likely correct, but the handgun stays.
United States v. Dorsey, 418 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2005).
Haven't looked for a link to that one yet.
The Dorsey appellate court simply adopts the ruling of the 8th Circuit in Danks, and says it is following its own precedent. Cites to its own precedent are above the blockquote I selected here:
The Eighth Circuit reached the same conclusion regarding S: 922(g), and relied upon it to uphold the constitutionality of the amended S: 922(q). United States v. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037, 1038-39 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citing United States v. Shelton, 66 F.3d 991, 992 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)). The Eighth Circuit concluded that because "section 922(q) contains language that ensures, on a case-by-case basis, that the firearm in question affects interstate commerce . . . the amended Act is a constitutional exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power." Danks, 221 F.3d at 1039.We agree with the Eighth Circuit's decision in Danks, and follow our own precedent regarding S: 922(g), in similarly resolving this issue. Dorsey's motion to dismiss Count Three of the indictment on the ground that 18 U.S.C. S: 922(q) is not a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause was properly denied.
Me, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.