Wyoming gun owners could violate federal law

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

[marktwain]

CHEYENNE — A traveler driving along Interstate 25 at Cheyenne will come within 1,000 feet of Jessup Elementary School.

If that Wyoming driver is carrying a weapon in the vehicle without a concealed weapon permit, he or she is in violation of a little-known federal law.

The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 makes it a crime to possess a functional firearm on public property, such as sidewalks, roads, highways, parks or fairgrounds within 1,000 feet of the property line of any elementary, middle or high school.

The penalty for violations is up to five years in federal prison and the permanent loss of the offender’s right to own a firearm.

The National Coalition for Amending the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act of 1995 is alerting Wyoming residents to the existence of the federal ban, given that the state’s new law allowing residents to carry handguns without permits is in effect.

“Anyone who carries in a populated area without a Wyoming permit is unavoidably committing multiple federal felonies,” said Grant Chapman of Oklahoma.

Chapman is working with the coalition and other gun rights organizations, including the Western Wyoming Riflemen’s Association based in Afton, to get the federal law changed.

[Smokin' Joe]

Thanks.

[Cboldt]

-- 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'. --

Not really. The Lopez decision was for show only. SCOTUS is in favor of an expansive federal government, as much or more than Congress and the president. As long as Congress uses the magic incantation, "or affects interstate commerce," SCOTUS will uphold the law.

As for how the 1995 GFSZA passed, it was inserted during Conference Committee during passage of H.R. 3610 in the 104th Congress : APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 (Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997).

Sec. 657. The conference agreement amends Title 18 to make the possession of a firearm in a school zone unlawful.
Sec. 658. The conference agreement amends Title 18 to deprive individuals convicted of a crime involving domestic violence of the right to own a firearm.

See too, HR 3610 and S 1894. S 1894 passed the Senate with only one "R" voting Nay, and the conference report passed the Senate on a voice vote.

This sort of "quiet action" is no aberration - this is how Congress passes most everything controversial. Bury it in a larger package, or have it magically appear in a conference report.

I have utter contempt for Congress.

-- 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. --

The law provides an exception for guns held on private property; as well as guns unloaded/cased for transportation. What is forbidden (or tightly regulated) is bearing arms outside of the home, e.g., for self defense, in a school zone. It is a felony for a licensed CCW holder who is not in the state that issued the license.

[archy]

Wyoming gun owners could violate federal law

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

United States Supreme Court, Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

[BCR #226]

The only contest that matters in this is a challenge at the SCOTUS level. Since the reinstatement of the safe school zone act, it hasn’t been challenged before SCOTUS. Remember, the lower courts found in favor of the act originally as well. SCOTUS overturned their decisions.

It hasn’t happened since. All the appellate court decisions are, to be blunt, meaningless once this is run up to SCOTUS again and believe me, it will reach SCOTUS within the next few years.

The anti’s pushed a bit too hard over the last 24 years. Payback is going to be quite painful for them. Since Congress has made absolutely no move to bring Federal Law in line with the decisions in Heller and McDonald, we’re forced to push more though the courts. The NFA, 922 (o), 922 (r), Sporting Purpose Clause of the 1968 GCA and all following law based on it are all on the chopping block since our elected officials won’t touch even some of it. We’d probably skip going after the NFA if 922 (o) was repealed. But, this works well enough to hit them like the Death Star and shoot these laws down.

[stevie_d_64]

That’s where I am concerned about the reciprocity agreement, that agreement should cover her if the permit issued in Texas is honored by the reciprical state...

If all else fails, she can go by the state(s) car carry provisions in the law and keep it unloaded and locked up in the safe in the vehicle...

If somethign goes wrong, I will certainly post it here...

[Cboldt]

-- That's where I am concerned about the reciprocity agreement, that agreement should cover her if the permit issued in Texas is honored by the reciprical state... --

It covers her as far as the reciprocal state is concerned. But the feds have their own separate law, and it is the federal law that she will be breaking.

I doubt the feds have any interest in prosecution of your wife, but the reciprocity provisions between states are immaterial to the feds.

-- If somethign goes wrong, I will certainly post it here... --

There are a few states to just stay out of, if armed. New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Illinois.

The OP is about a separate problem, where states permit carry without a license. Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, and more to come. A person can be carrying legally in his state of residence, and be afoul of the federal ban on weapons in a school zone.

[Cboldt]

-- The only contest that matters in this is a challenge at the SCOTUS level. --

I disagree. District and Circuit Court decisions have the power of force, even when they are wrong in light of precedent. People serve time in jail, and SCOUTS just says "cert. denied."

Federal Circuit Court decisions upholding state bans on firearm possession, based on misapplication of Presser, issued for decades before the McDonald decision, and many of them were "cert denied." For those decades, the Circuit Court decisions were the law, period.

SCOTUS recently denied cert to Hamblen, where he aimed to make an issue of SCOTUS inverting of its own Miller precedent. See too, the Stewart case in the 9th Circuit - run up to SCOTUS which ordered the 9th Circuit to apply Raich.

-- believe me, it will reach SCOTUS within the next few years --

I'll wait and see.

[Cboldt]

-- The NFA, 922 (o), 922 (r), Sporting Purpose Clause of the 1968 GCA and all following law based on it are all on the chopping block since our elected officials won't touch even some of it. We'd probably skip going after the NFA if 922 (o) was repealed. But, this works well enough to hit them like the Death Star and shoot these laws down. --

Reread what Scalia did for the NFA, in the Heller decision.

Note that the NFA was struck down by a federal district court, in the Miller case, as applied to a short barrel shotgun. SCOTUS, in the Miller decision, said there was no evidence that a short barrel shotgun had a militia or defensive use, and that such evidence had to appear in the record in order to strike the NFA as unconstitutional.

Fast forward to the Heller decision, and Scalia says the Miller test is "in common use." Well, short barrel shotguns and M-16's (specific example in the Heller case) are NOT in common use, BECAUSE the feds outlawed it. By that logic, any ban bootstraps itself into constitutionality.

If you think SCOTUS is going to find the NFA or GCA unconstitutional, you are dreaming. It had a perfect opportunity with Hamblen, and turned the case away without comment.

[stevie_d_64]

You know before she left, I printed out the state info on the places they will be traveling through...I made note to make sure they knew about the State and National Park carry in those states, rest areas, restaurants that serve alcohol etc etc etc...

I got that info from a couple of old friend on the old website Packing.Org (now gone) and they Steve Aiken and Gary Slider went and created the HandgunUS.com website that is just a clearing house of what we know about each state, and where your CCW permit/license/sarc (permission slip) is good...

That is an outstanding website and for those of us who travel as much as we can, it really helps in a non-binding legal way to keep us all straight on the laws and the go, no-go plaves in other states where we may not know everything about their laws...I refer to it a lot to see what is going on around the country, and they keep it as updated as possible...

FYI...;-)

[stevie_d_64]

Ohhh, BTW, you forgot Kalifornia...I just got back from Kali in April, and we had to stop in Yuma, AZ. and unload, and render the guns inaccessable to us in the cab of the truck before crossing into never-everland...

The trip was great, but as soon as we got back into the real world, we armed back up at AZ mile marker No. 1...hehehe

Almost felt like open carrying, but seeings how we were in transit and probably wouldn’t stop but one more time, I left it wedged in the seat cushion...bletch!!!

[Cboldt]

-- Ohhh, BTW, you forgot Kalifornia... --

It's still there? ;-)

Good catch. There are probably others too. I think Maryland sucks, and probably Rhode Island and Delaware.

-- Almost felt like open carrying ... --

I only do that when target shooting. Well, used to, before that canoe accident in deep water.

[stevie_d_64]

You had one of those accidents too??? What a coincidence!!!

All that hardware deepsixed!!! What a shame!!!

I think FReeper Travis McGee had an accident like that too...Tragic!!!

[6ppc]

A good lawyer could argue that Wyoming's carry law grants an implied permit.

A bigger issue is that people drive around every day with guns in their vehicles not even knowing there is a school nearby or that they are "violating federal law". For example, there is a school directly across the road from the entrance to my gun club. I have a permit, but I'm sure there are many members who do not.

[BCR #226]

SCOTUS wants to hear the case. That has been publicly stated. No one has brought it up. The lower court cases do have meaning up until someone takes it all the way up. That will happen in the next few years.

[Cboldt]

-- SCOTUS wants to hear the case. That has been publicly stated. --

It didn't want to hear Hamblen's case. Anyway, please be more specific about "the case" that SCOTUS wants to hear, and if you are able, point me to the public statement.

-- The lower court cases do have meaning up until someone takes it all the way up. --

That's what I said. The cases are binding on the parties and in the Circuit, as a matter of law, upon the appeals being exhausted. There is no right to have SCOTUS hear a 2nd amendment case. Not that they won't take those cases, just that SCOTUS may just as well choose not to, and the law of the Circuit will stand until SCOTUS reverses. Even then, Congress can design around the SCOTUS smackdown, see the Lopez case and subsequent addition of the jurisdictional predicate.

[BCR #226]

I’ll have to look for the comments. It’s been years since I’ve read them.

However, given Heller and McDonald, and how Congress showed naked contempt for the Court, you better believe that SCOTUS is going to take a Safe School Zones Act case as well as other 2nd Amendment cases. Just wait until an NFA based case gets to SCOTUS. After McDonald, the NFA is UnConstitutional.

Lesson to be learned, don’t tinkle in the cheerios of SCOTUS. They can and in this case probably will put a smack down of epic proportions over this. Case in point, watch Heller II as it progresses through the courts.

[Cboldt]

-- Just wait until an NFA based case gets to SCOTUS. After McDonald, the NFA is UnConstitutional. --

After Miller, in 1939, the NFA is unconstitutional. I pointed the Hamblen case out to you, this is the third time, which is directly on the point of the NFA. Hamblen did time for possession of a select-fire AR-15/M-16 gun. No criminal, he. Lost in the District Court, argued on appeal that Heller misread Miller, lost on appeal, petitioned SCOTUS for cert., cert. denied (last year, I think, maybe early this year).

SCOTUS isn't going to take an NFA or GCA case. Scalia's dicta in Heller set the stage for the Circuit Courts to do the heavy lifting; and they are doing so.

-- watch Heller II as it progresses through the courts. --

That's an objection to the hurdles that DC erected to obtain a permit to possess at home. Damn far cry from finding any part of the NFA or GCA unconstitutional.