Posted on 09/03/2011 1:12:12 PM PDT by marktwain
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill (HR-2613) to repeal the federal Gun Free School Zone Act. While many in the general public and the gun prohibition community will balk and ask questions like, “What does anyone need with a gun at a school,” knowledgeable rights supporters are wondering why it has taken so long.
The Gun Free School Zone Act, or GFSZA for short, was originally passed by Congress back in 1990, but in 1995 the Supreme Court voided the law, ruling it (quite correctly) to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal power. Congress quickly passed a revised version of the act which included the stipulation that the firearm had, “moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.” With this addition Congress supposedly provided constitutional authority for their actions and, while the Supreme Court has not revisited the issue, several Appeals Courts have upheld convictions under the new language.
The GFSZA is one of those feel-good laws that so often pass in the wake of a tragedy – the Stockton, California schoolyard shooting, in this case – which do nothing to address the problem, but which leave a wake of unintended consequences. The GFSZA did nothing to prevent the rash of school shootings that plagued the nation in the 1990s.
Does anyone honestly believe that the Columbine murderers were deterred in the slightest by the law against bringing guns within 1000 feet of a school? Could the police have somehow been magically aware of the illegal presence of the firearms and been able to interdict the weapons before the murderers had the opportunity to start their killing spree? Unlikely. But a gun owner pulled over for a traffic violation who is carrying a gun in the car in an otherwise lawful manner could be charged with a federal felony (5 years and $5,000) if he happens to be within the mythical Gun Free School Zone.
The federal law prohibits anyone from being in possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of any accredited school or daycare center. One thousand feet is almost 3 city blocks, and the zone begins at the edge of school property, not the door of the school. In metropolitan areas these zones often overlap to the extent that lawful travel while armed is completely impossible. While the law does make exceptions for residents within the zone and anyone licensed by the state to possess firearms, it makes no exception for states that do not require a license to possess a gun.
What’s more, the GFSZA does not recognize licenses issued in other states. Though I have legally carried a gun for over 25 years and am licensed to lawfully do so in 34 states, I do not have a permit issued by my home state of Arizona. Even though Arizona recognizes both my Utah and my Virginia permits and the state requires no permit at all for lawful carry, I could be committing a federal offence virtually every time I leave my home with a loaded firearm because there are schools along almost every route out of my neighborhood.
The GFSZA is simply bad law. It violates the limits on federal authority in the Constitution. It infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights. And it doesn’t do anything to reduce crime. It’s ridiculous that this bad law hasn’t been repealed long before now. Unfortunately the odds are not very good that it will be repealed in this congress. While Ron Paul has long been one of the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment in Congress, his legislative proposals rarely go anywhere because the proposals tend to be aggressive, and because Paul’s not in with the “in” crowd. He often deviates from the party line when he feels that Republicans are straying from the constitutional straight and narrow. That principled commitment has also put Paul at odds with the NRA on issues such as the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which he felt was unconstitutional and voted against.
I fear Dr. Paul’s bill to repeal the GFSZA is running head-on into both of those problems. Politicians are terrified of any suggestion that they’re not “for the children,” and the Republicans and NRA are not inclined to work on something that makes Paul look good after he’s not supported them.
The only thing that can give this bill legs is a groundswell of grassroots support demanding that Representatives sign on as cosponsors and work for passage. That means that, as usual, it’s up to you and me. Tell Congress you want them to obey the Constitution, support HR-2613, and repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act.
Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ 85326.
Ron Paul is the best.
Why not also repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act while you are at it?
...Bravo, Rep. Paul!!!
It would be a good compromise postion to repeal the GC68. We can accept that as a compromise instead of disbanding the BATF.
Which is EXACTLY the goal of these fargin traitors!
Gun free zones are baited fields.
“What does anyone need with a gun at a school,” asks the Liberal.
The answer: “Beslan” - go Google Beslan”.
Exactly. This law is a direct attack on the American gun culture, the culture of freedom and limited government.
I'll go ya one better. We had a range in the school basement where we could practice after school hours. No one thought it at all odd.
Regards,
GtG
Agreed. (See my tagline.)
Serious question.....
Texas law .... Defines the term “premises”.
http://chlwiki.com/index.php?title=TPC_46.035
My CHL classes an the definition of “premises” under Texas Penal Code 46.035 states if I’m reading this correct that I can leave my firearm in my private vehicle if I’m attending a high school football game in the school parking lot. Also my local polling place is said high school.
This federal feral bullsh*t gun free zone trump Texas state law or not ?
...... Seems like entrapment by one or the other law / rule ?
Got to go see my little-Gator Tuesday morning.... Damn polidiots !
Comments an opinions on this Texas CHL law.
Thanks to all ahead of time .
Sir shark enjoys these examples of legal trappings and may have 2 cents to add...
as far as ky CDW permit, instructions stated that it 'allowed' the possession in the vehicle while on school grounds, in a sense, its the trump i reckon...i *think* OC w/o a permit [legal in ky] is still a no-no though...
I think we would have better luck with a simple bill ignoring all the individual crybaby issues:
The Constitutional gun act:
“
Recognizing the clear prohibition against Federal gun laws in the Federal Constitution. All existing Federal laws related to guns are hereby expunged.
“
Don’t bother trying to repeal each and every act, it would take too much time and step upon too many touchy freely issues. Just repeal em all together.
I like your idea. Maybe we could get President Palin to push it for us!
TX State Constitution
AART 1, SEC. 23. — Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
Given that the legislature may regulate the WEARING of arms, the State cannot in in any given situation prohibit both open and concealed carry without violating the first clause. And in no way does the above prohibit places one may KEEP arms (such as in vehicles) nor authorize the legislature to create prohibited places.
“”Don’t bother trying to repeal each and every act, it would take too much time and step upon too many touchy freely issues. Just repeal em all together.”
I like your idea. Maybe we could get President Palin to push it for us!”
I seriously doubt there ever will be a president Palin, but that don’t mean Palin couldn’t push for it with just as much effect in her present capacity.
Its nuts to go after each and every federal gun law ever made. They are all equally unauthorized and they all equally need to be unequivocally expunged as such. Just becase some of them were passed for touchy feely but ultimatly Failed and unjustifyable reasons makes no diffrence.
We are only shooting ourselfs in the foot by trying to repeal em one at a time. It will NEVER happen, and even if it did happen it would happen only so rarely that we could never repeal enough of em fast enough to keep up with the rate at which new ones will be created.
Repeal em all together with simple language reflecting the 2nd amendment and dare the democrats and RINO republicans to vote against it. The Federal Government has no business passing laws trying to restrict our right to keep and bare arms period.
If leftist want their population to be disarmed let them disarm em at the state level. They will have about as much success in disarming the criminals.
“TX State Constitution
AART 1, SEC. 23. — Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
Given that the legislature may regulate the WEARING of arms, the State cannot in in any given situation prohibit both open and concealed carry without violating the first clause. And in no way does the above prohibit places one may KEEP arms (such as in vehicles) nor authorize the legislature to create prohibited places.”
Can’t say I find that interpenetration particularly disagreeable.
Although I would point out that “the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”
does seem to express a power to prohibit the wearing of arms in specific locations or manners.
Truth be known I think We should amend the Texas Constitution to be a bit more strait forward.
>Can’t say I find that interpenetration particularly disagreeable.
>Although I would point out that “the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”
>does seem to express a power to prohibit the wearing of arms in specific locations or manners.
>Truth be known I think We should amend the Texas Constitution to be a bit more strait forward.
I do like New Mexico’s Art II Sec 6:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)
Too bad that the State and Municipal courts flout this regularly (by prohibiting weapons in their courtrooms), I’ve been tossing around the idea of open-carrying into one and then countersuing under various laws, 18USC 241/242 spring to mind.
Perhaps a better version would be something like:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
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.