Skip to comments.Bill Introduced to Repeal Gun-Free School Zones Federal Law
Posted on 01/11/2017 4:42:43 AM PST by marktwain
WASHINGTON, D.C. On Monday, U.S. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 34, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.There is no indication that the GFSZA has been effective in any way other than as propaganda demonizing guns and gun owners. Mass school shootings have dramatically increased after passage of the act. Federal prosecutors seem leery of bringing charges for fear of another Supreme Court fight. The first battle took place before U.S. v. Heller or McDonald, both seminal Second Amendment cases. It is hard to believe that a blanket ban on possessing arms outside the home within 1,000 feet of a school would pass Constitutional muster, given a Trump replacement for Justice Scalia.
The bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) in 2007, repeals the Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990, which makes it unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. In 1995, the Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended Act.
Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments, said Massie. Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.
The Safe Students Act has garnered the support of three major gun organizations: National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, and the National Rifle Association.
Representative Massie concluded: A bigger federal government cant solve this problem. Weapons bans and gun-free zones are unconstitutional. They do not and cannot prevent criminals or the mentally ill from committing acts of violence. But they often prevent victims of such violence from protecting themselves.
It claims the power to ban guns at an arbitrary distance (1000 feet) from a school, any school, not on school property. This makes virtually cities traps where you cannot exercise your right to bear arms without breaking the law. It should be repealed. Mass shootings in schools *increased* after the law was passed.
How many lives has this inane and unconditional law cost? The infuriating part is that WE WARNED YOU THAT WHAT HAPPENED WOULD DEFINITELY HAPLEN.
I wish that those people who passed this law could be held personally liable.
How about getting rid of gun free post office zones.
I am for eliminating all school and federal property gun free zones except where you have to pass through a permanent metal detector for ccw folks. It is silly that I can hike all over THE GREAT SAND DUNES NATIONAL PARK but have to lock my gun in the car to enter the visitor center. My understanding of the federal school law is the 1000 foot zone applies to out of state people. Where I live I still cannot carry on school grounds, except in my car, BUT someone out of state could not drive past the school without breaking the law. Will ask in legal class Thursday night.
“How many lives has this inane and unconditional law cost?”
You are missing the point of the law. To libs, facts do not matter at all. It’s how good something makes you feel. Knowing there are no guns near a school makes them feel safe, and because it’s their idea, they feel warm and fuzzy over it.
And when a citizen with a legal gun gets into one of these traps and nailed to the wall because of the law, the libs have orgasms.
When murderous felons shoot up a school, then the libs get to enact stiffer gun laws and eventually a gun grab.
The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3.Oh, that poor, tortured Commerce Clause!
Not sure what kind of tweak a RAT Congress used to overcome that. But obviously, the Federal Gubermint has no business passing such a law.
Here is how President Trump can do it.
Strongly suggest you all read the SCOTUS case U.S. v Lopez, linked in the main post. Wow, been a long time since I’ve seen such clarity about the 10th Amendment. Also see what is said about not mandating a Federal curriculum in slapping down Breyer. Finally, see how far we have departed from what this case said was out-of-bounds for Congress.
No. It applies to anyone carrying without a concealed carry permit, resident of the state or not.
Yes, it was a decent decision.
Then Scalia gutted it in Raich, saying growing marijuana in a persons home for there own consumption, affected interstate commerce. Scalia was unable to overcome his drug warrior background.
How about military facilities being gun-free zones? Time to end this nonsense.
See post 8. Here is the link:
All schools? Even private schools? Shouldn’t they have the ability to allow ccw parents on campus if they so choose?
RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
Please FReepmail me to be added to or deleted from this ping list.
How is the thousand feet measured. If it is direct distance, the nicest sick myself and most of my neighbors are all within it .
As I understand it, it is 1,000 feet from the nearest boundary of the property.
There is an exception for people who own private property in that area.
I hate Siri doing the typing for me. Anyway, my home is well within 1,090 direct as a bird flies from my kid’s school. Hard to imagine anyone having the nerve to tell me I cannot have guns on my property or driving in the neighborhood, which practically requires me to drive by the school.
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.