imported post
aloe
wrote:
[*]Any facility of a vocational/technical school, or the University of Nevada, or Community College System without written permission. I better go check how far away from my nearest school I am when I OC out of my house.
The Federal law, assuming it
is constitutional, only applies to K-12 Schools, not colleges. State law only restricts being on the property of schools and colleges but has no mention of school zones.
aloe wrote:
I live700 feet away froma middle school.
Can I still OC or I have to get a CCW license and go concealed?
I am not a lawyer, and nothing I say shall be construed as legal advice, but here is my opinion.
On your own property or any other private property you are okay because that is an expressly mentioned exception to the federal law. However, once you step off of thecurb, the federal law
may apply.
Also, you have to
knowthat you are withing 1000 feet of a school zone. In my opinion, I never know that unless I can see the school is obviously within that distance. Also, you might consider that
maybe you have notmeasuredthe distance between your houseand maybe it is a bit over 1000 feet. I couldn't tell the difference between 500 feet, 1000 feet, or 2000 feet very easily.
In my opinion the law is totally unconstitional. If you would like to read more about its constitutionality, here is something from Duke University:
http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+637+pdf
...
Basically, the Supreme Court already called it unconstitutional in 1996 since they did not find it within the scope ofthe duties of Congressto regulate it, and it deemed to be an unconstitutional extension of the interstate-commerce clause. Congress of course, was stubborn, and rather than just repeal the law, they just modified it to include claims that "it pertains to interstate commerce."
They "declare" that all firearms have moved through interstate commerce, and "assume" that something having moved in interstate commerce in the past means that it pertains to interstate commerce forever. They modified it to include that you have to be found affecting interstate commerce in order to be guilty. Even though this circular logic would indicate you would be just because they say it is so, looking at the reasoning of the Supreme Court when finding it unconstitutional, I would say that it would not be so easy for them to prove that you were affecting commerce.
Personally, I find the federal lawto beignorable. Do so at your own risk. It is a serious federal felony charge if you were convicted of violating it. Has anyone heard of a case where someone was prosecuted under the new iteration of the law?
(According to
http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Nx1.htmthere wereno cases as of 2005. The same webiste also has a summary of all the changes made after the original was found unconstitutional:
http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf)
It seems to me if someone ever is prosecuted under it, it wouldgo back to the Supreme Court immediately. (And my personal belief is that it would be foundjust as unconstitutionalas its predecessor.)I think there is a good chance that the federal law is nearly unenforceable, or the circumstances which would result in enforcement are very rare.
However, I seriously would not recommend loiteringright next to a school.If someone did complain about you the law may decide to make you a test case.
Constitutionality aside, any time you know (or reasonably should know) thatyou are withing 1000 feet of a school you are violating thewording of this act. The question is, how much faith do you have that it is unenforceable?
-------------------
In order to be convicted of violating this law,
1) The arresting officer knows you are within 1000 feet, and assumes that you do not have a CCW permit.
2) The arresting officer knows about this Federal law and considers it constitional and enforceable.
3) They can prove that you should have known it was within 1000 feet.
4) It can be proven that you were affecting commerce. (Congress declares it.)
5) It has to be deemed constitutional by thecourts.