Driving past a school on way to range

Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling adding wording placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element, that the "firearm has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce."[1]. In re-enacting the law Congress did not address the Court's finding that "The possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce." and "Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with 'commerce' or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms."

Click to expand...

THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1995

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995. This common-sense measure, which replaces the original Gun Free School Zones Act, is needed to send a strong message to teachers, State law enforcement officers and State prosecutors: the Federal Government stands behind you and will support you in getting guns out of our school grounds.

Let me begin by reminding you that the original version of this bill passed by unanimous consent in 1990. The measure was kept in conference where any one member's objection could have struck the bill. That conference was attended by the senior members of the Judiciary Committee, among them Senators Biden, Hatch, Thurmond, Simpson, and Kennedy. It was signed into law by then-President Bush. It is a measure that was supported by all of us. And we should continue to support it.

But in April, a sharply divided Supreme Court struck down the original Gun-Free School Zones Act in the case of United States versus Lopez. It did so on the grounds that the commerce clause of the Constitution did not support the act. As long as we can address the Supreme Court's concerns, there is no reason why the decision should alter the support this bill had in 1990.

The original act made it a Federal crime to knowingly bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school or to fire a gun in these zones, with carefully crafted exceptions. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 does exactly what the old act did. However, it adds a requirement that the prosecutor prove as part of each prosecution that the gun moved in or affected interstate or foreign commerce.

That is the only change to the legislative language of the original bill. The only change. We place only a minor burden on prosecutors while simply and plainly assuring the constitutionality of the act.

The goal of this bill is simple: to heed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Federal power and yet to continue the fight against school violence. The Lopez decision cannot be used as an excuse for complacency.

Mr. President, this bill is a practical approach to the national epidemic of gun violence plaguing our education system. In 1990, the Centers For Disease Control found that 1 in 20 students carried a gun in a 30-day period. Three years later, it was 1 in 12. Even worse, the National Education Association estimates that 100,000 kids bring guns to school every day. How can Congress turn its back on our children when their safety is being threatened on a daily basis?

My home State, Wisconsin, is not immune to this wave of violence. According to Gerald Mourning, the former director of school safety for Milwaukee, `[K]ids who did their fighting with their fists, and perhaps knives, are now settling their arguments with guns.' In the 1993-94 school year half of the students expelled from the Milwaukee Public Schools were thrown out for bringing a gun to school. In Dane County, WI, the number of juvenile weapons offenses tripled--from 75 in 1989 to 220 in 1993.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 is a simple, straightforward, effective and construction approach to this problem. In the Lopez decision, the Supreme Court held that the original act exceeded Congress' commerce clause power because it did not adequately tie guns found in school zones to interstate commerce. Much as I disagree with the 5 to 4 decision and strongly agree with the dissenters--Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg--our new legislation will clearly pass muster under the majority's Lopez test. By requiring that the prosecutor prove that the gun brought to school `moved in or affected interstate commerce,' the act is a clear exercise of Congress' unquestioned power to regulate interstate activities. In fact, the Lopez decision itself suggested that requiring an explicit connection between the gun and interstate commerce in each prosecution would assure the constitutionality of the act.

Click to expand...

krucam said:

Jeez, I've been driving by Great Mills HS on my way to Sanners for a couple of years with my handgun (unloaded) unlocked in it's case.

Serious gray area when the direct route to my range is on the same road as a HS...

Click to expand...

Deapsee said:

Duke Law article on the Constitutionality of the GFSZA of 1996.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+637

If anyone knows of any cases tried please post links.

Looks like I'll be locking my gun cases from now on.

Click to expand...

K-Romulus said:

Not being a MD lawyer, here is my take. There are three laws on transporting that may apply:

1) MD law on transport
- the "handgun transport" law may apply, but it doesn't single out school zones for it's application

2) Local transport laws
- MD's preemption law allows localities to regulate firearms possession within 100 yards of schools.
- Some localities like MoCO quickly stepped in to regulate that so-called "safety zone" that surrounds "places of public assembly."
- one example: MoCo Code 57-11


- "place of public assembly" as defined in the MoCo Code


- Takoma Park has a transport law very similar to the MoCO one, but expands the "places of public assembly" definition to include private property generally open to the public, including parking lots Tripwire claimed that the TP City Attorney told the city council that the definition included public sidewalks.
http://www.codepublishing.com/MD/TakomaPark/ (Chapter 14.16 GUN REGULATION)



- another example (Village of Friendship Heights, near Chevy Chase) that bans all handguns within the safety zone under your scenario
http://www.friendshipheightsmd.gov/PDFs/RevisedRegulations.pdf


3) Federal "gun free school zones act" (18 USC 922(q))
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922(q).html
- says all guns are banned within 1000 feet of a school, unless you have a "permit," or they are unloaded and in a locked container, or you are law enforcement, or a few other exceptions not that relevant to your question
- this law was struck down by the USSC in the 1990's as not being a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.
- Congress reenacted it immediately, this time with some cover language about how it "found" that "guns at school = decline in educational quality = economic impact."
- BATF says it enforces this law, but there have been no attempts at bringing any prosecutions after the USSC disaster for the feds in the 1990's.

As for the question about pulling into the lot at the direction of the police, I refer you to that thread about police instructions that entrap you into doing something illegal. While a traffic stop is different from an officer asking you something from his car while you are sitting on your porch, in that the traffic stop is a 4th Amendment "seizure" that raises more questions about the nature of the police instructions, if you have the chance to keep going to property NOT on school grounds, I would that that is the better choice.

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

Since very few have MD permits, it's really not a huge deal IMO.

Click to expand...

TopShelf said:

My read on the Friendship Heights gun law is that it does not apply to people with MD carry permits. Since almost nobody has a MD carry permit, the ban is applicable to the majority of people.
It appears that Friendship Heights residents who have property within that 100 yards of the enumerated list of places can't posses any of those items on their property. Maybe I am missing something...this seems just plain wrong

Click to expand...

miaghan said:

I dont want firearms on school property. I fear for the safety of my son knowing people with firearms are driving past his school while he is eating his lunch in the cafeteria.

Click to expand...

miaghan said:

I don't want firearms on school property. I fear for the safety of my son knowing people with firearms are driving past his school while he is eating his lunch in the cafeteria.

Click to expand...

History

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was originally passed as section 1702 of the Crime Control Act of 1990. It added 18 U.S.C. § 922(q); 18 U.S.C. § 922 itself was added by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
The Supreme Court of the United States subsequently held that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Following the Lopez decision, President Clinton's Attoney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.[5] These minor changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce".[6]
As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.[5]
Challenges

The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v. Dorsey,[7] the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised version of the law.

Click to expand...