Posted on 09/25/2025 1:12:04 PM PDT by CFW
The decision, which hinges on an exception to the Gun-Free School Zones Act, does not say whether that law is consistent with the Second Amendment.
A couple of years ago, Gabriel Metcalf was charged with a federal felony because he stepped onto the sidewalk in front of his house in Billings, Montana, while holding a shotgun. Metcalf, who had armed himself because of a dispute with a neighbor who was subject to a restraining order, was not violating state law. But because Metcalf lives across the street from an elementary school, prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Montana argued, he had violated the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act(GFSZA).
Metcalf argued that the GFSZA, which bans gun possession on public property within 1,000 feet of a primary or secondary school, violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms. This week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit sidestepped that issue, instead overturning Metcalf's conviction on the grounds that he arguably qualified for an exception to the GFSZA.
That law exempts anyone who is "licensed" to publicly carry a gun within school zones, provided "law enforcement authorities…verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license." But Montana is one of 29 states that allow adults to carry guns without a permit, provided they are not legally disqualified from owning them. Although state legislators explicitly said residents who meet those criteria should be considered "licensed" within the meaning of the GFSZA, federal prosecutors disagreed.
[snip]
The 9th Circuit's resolution of Metcalf's case leaves open the question of whether that situation is consistent with the right to bear arms that the Supreme Court upheld in Bruen.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
9th circus finds acorn?..............
Looks like they want to let him off based on interpretation of an exception rather than let the whole thing be struck down by SC.
Just like the 1994 Assault weapons ban, take a weapon and paint it black and presto change-O, we have millions of folks that are now felons!
At that time my US House rep was Jay Inslee. I asked besides the coat of paint and a pistol grip, what is the difference in my Remington 870 Wingmaster shotgun? It functions identically, but now if I add a pistol grip and painted it black you just made me a felon!
Needless to say, he couldn’t answer the question
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Montana needs a job, or they need to be subsumed into another district.
The law is blatantly unConstitutional, and that it hasn’t, and wasn’t in this case, been found so says much about the state of our legal system.
Just like the 1994 Assault weapons ban, take a weapon and paint it black and presto change-O, we have millions of folks that are now felons!
At that time my US House rep was Jay Inslee. I asked besides the coat of paint and a pistol grip, what is the difference in my Remington 870 Wingmaster shotgun? It functions identically, but now if I add a pistol grip and painted it black you just made me a felon!
Needless to say, he couldn’t answer the question
I’ve said before that it is ridiculous to have representatives attempting to make laws regarding guns when they have no idea how guns work. My goodness, they don’t even know the difference between magazines and stripper clips. I bet if you showed most representatives a .22 and a 9mm round they couldn’t tell you which was which.
I would like to hear the back-story of the neighbor v neighbor situation from the view of the local law enforcement. I would be surprised if the beat cops ever intended this to become a Federal case.
Biden stooges.
Biden stooges.
Thank God. You would think you would be safe in all places Montana.
They've found a number of acorns recently.
My local Whole Foods says “no guns allowed.” Can they do that?
My local Whole Foods says “no guns allowed.” Can they do that?
It depends upon your state’s laws.
For instance, private property owners and businesses in Georgia have the legal right to ban firearms on their property, even with the state’s “Constitutional Carry” laws. However, appropriate signage must be posted to inform individuals that firearms are not permitted on the property.
My guess is that the 9th Circus was determined to not let SCOTUS have the chance to decide this on 2nd grounds.
Private property is private property.
Arizona’s Laws:
An Arizona Concealed Carry Permit holder may be exempt from the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) under certain conditions, as the federal law allows for possession by an individual “licensed by the State”. However, the primary exception is if the permit was issued by the state where the school is located.
Arizona residents holding an AZ concealed carry permit are generally permitted to carry in school zones, though private schools may have specific policies, and an approved training program could also apply.
“Looks like they want to let him off based on interpretation of an exception rather than let the whole thing be struck down by SC.”
I think you are exactly right.
Likely they can in many states. Don't go there any more, no problem.
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.