Montana Man Arrested by ATF for Carrying Gun in a School Zone - Ammoland

[press1280]

You are presumed to have a permit. Otherwise Constitutional carry would be worthless. Try to drive around without coming within 1000 feet of a school. CONSTITUTIONAL. I agree, the government can press this. It will indeed be interesting.

Definitely in a city/urban area if you plot out 1000 feet around any school yea, there's literally nowhere to go

 

[traveller]

You don’t need a permit in MT.

I believe having a permit has an exemption in the GFZ law. It has been a reason why people in permit free states have obtained them anyway.

 

[Biggfoot44]

" Permitless Carry " is not an automatic direct substitute for a Permit . Permitless Carry confirs exactly what the State Statute says . Various states do have differences , some minor , some not so .

Every State that had a Permit , still offers them optionally . Many people do
get them , for reciprosity outside that
state , and for unambiguous compliance with GFSZ .

 

[press1280]

I believe having a permit has an exemption in the GFZ law. It has been a reason why people in permit free states have obtained them anyway.

This is correct. When the law was written in the 1990s VT was the only ConCarry state.
The Federal law was going to be written based on the situation at the time.

 

[press1280]

MT does specifically state someone is “licensed” for the GFSZ law if they can legally possess under state law.

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure, MCA

leg.mt.gov

We could be headed for an interesting showdown in Federal court. Question is whether the state will back him up or sit silent (I don’t see them opposing him).
On the surface this is a PERFECT case against the law.

 

[Biggfoot44]

MT does specifically state someone is “licensed” for the GFSZ law if they can legally possess under state law.

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure, MCA

leg.mt.gov

Welp , there you go !

It seems that * For Montana Residents * , the Montana Legislature did indeed extend the full prerogatives of Carry Permits to non- permitted , non - prohibited citizens . Good for them !

Don't assume it's that way everywhere , and always check the statutes in any state , for the fine print particulars .

 

[Blacksmith101]

Liberty Doll has a lot more information in her video. Like he was on his own property, he and his mother had been threatened by a neighbor, the local police apparently did nothing about his complaints about the neighbor, he has no record criminal or mental, the ATF confiscated his single shot shotgun and after executing a search warrant also took his "Arsenal" of six rounds of ammunition, he also is in jail on no bond and has a court appointed attorney because he can't afford one.

You might want to watch this if you live within 1,000 feet of a school or any of the "Gun Free Buffer Zones" in any of the Maryland or Montgomery County new anti gun laws.

Link to video (7 minutes):

 

[Allen65]

Maybe this can be the case that gets GFSZA overturned once and for all.

 

[jc1240]

Defendant was about to be released on bail (having to wear a $300/month monitor), but just before....the jail refuses say they "found" a 3-year-old unserved warrant for a misdemeanor. His federal defender was not allowed to defend him in the local court and the county is horrible at providing public defenders...so horrible it has been held in contempt for hundreds of unassigned cases.

 

[press1280]

Defendant was about to be released on bail (having to wear a $300/month monitor), but just before....the jail refuses say they "found" a 3-year-old unserved warrant for a misdemeanor. His federal defender was not allowed to defend him in the local court and the county is horrible at providing public defenders...so horrible it has been held in contempt for hundreds of unassigned cases.

So somehow the Feds found the guy had a local misdemeanor assault charge….which the locals somehow didn’t know about.
Smells very fishy.

 

[spoon059]

This guy had to know this was coming. I get that it's his private property and whatnot, but his balls are bigger than mine.

The article says that he was walking on the sidewalk across from the school. The sidewalk is likely not his private property, hence the charge. Lots of people think that they own the land right up to the edge of the roadway, but the reality is that the local jurisdiction owns a certain distance from the crown of the road. You might MAINTAIN that grassy area, but it is owned by the government.

 

[Inigoes]

The article says that he was walking on the sidewalk across from the school. The sidewalk is likely not his private property, hence the charge. Lots of people think that they own the land right up to the edge of the roadway, but the reality is that the local jurisdiction owns a certain distance from the crown of the road. You might MAINTAIN that grassy area, but it is owned by the government.

Then the government needs to make that clear and adjust eveyones land maps and taxes.

 

[mpollan1]

Then the government needs to make that clear and adjust eveyones land maps and taxes.

Haha, that's some funny stuff right there. Honestly though I would like property taxes eliminated altogether. Make up for it elsewhere. Back on topic, I hope this guy walks.

 

[spoon059]

Then the government needs to make that clear and adjust eveyones land maps and taxes.

Take a look at your plot and taxes. You don't own it and don't pay taxes upon that land.

 

[Inigoes]

Take a look at your plot and taxes. You don't own it and don't pay taxes upon that land.

As I do not live in an urban environment, They are not on mine to begin with.

 

[spoon059]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. Urban or rural, the government owns a certain distance from the crown of the road, beyond the edge of the roadbed.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

 

[AlBeight]

The article says that he was walking on the sidewalk across from the school. The sidewalk is likely not his private property, hence the charge. Lots of people think that they own the land right up to the edge of the roadway, but the reality is that the local jurisdiction owns a certain distance from the crown of the road. You might MAINTAIN that grassy area, but it is owned by the government.

Not necessarily true, you can own the land but the sidewalk is a deeded right of way, meaning others have the right to use it, but the City doesn’t own it. My plot of my townhouse in Hampstead I own the property the common parking lot is on, all the way to the curb out at the main street. The sidewalk and drive lanes that pedestrians and my neighbors drive their vehicles on to get to their properties are merely deeded right of ways. I know many folks that have had their property “siezed” by the counties and various towns for road expansions and utility work, so yes, check the recorded property plots as to what you actually own or don’t. Easements and right of ways don’t make it public property, but it can result in other uses you don’t want or approve of.

In my ‘hood, my sidewalk is my property, so are my parking spaces and the drive lane accessing them. I just can’t stop stop others from using it or digging it up, etc...

 

[357Max]

Listen starting at about the 12:30 mark. The Judge that just enjoined part of MD sensitive places law specifically stated school grounds. He got it wrong, but did not state zones, just grounds. Had he followed Bruen he would not have been able to rationalize that.

 

[teratos]

I think you're missing the bigger picture. Urban or rural, the government owns a certain distance from the crown of the road, beyond the edge of the roadbed.

The 1A applies in easement areas…the 2A should as well.

 

[spoon059]

Not necessarily true, you can own the land but the sidewalk is a deeded right of way, meaning others have the right to use it, but the City doesn’t own it.

Yea... that's why I said it's "likely" not his property, not it's "definitely" not his property.