TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:

ELB wrote: Here is one of the cases I have run across.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/173340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, that's interesting. I checked the dates, and Tait was prosecuted under the 2nd version of GFSZA, which passed in 1996 after the 1990 law was overturned by SCOTUS in Lopez, in 1995.

It's the first time I've read a case under that law. I'm glad the 11th Circuit (which tends to favor the government) didn't buy the government's arguments.

Ok, here's a couple more I retrieved. There are not a lot of them --- or at least I didn't find a lot of them.

http://openjurist.org/221/f3d/1037/unit ... rdan-danks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
US vs Danks, USCA 8th Circuit

Danks shot at a car within 1000 feet of an elementary school, and was charged under the GFSZ Act, 1995 version (with "jurisdictional element" added). Danks argued that even as amended, the law exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce clause. Danks lost.

http://openjurist.org/480/f3d/597/unite ... ves-castao" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

US vs NIEVES-CASTAÑO, USCA 1st Circuit
NIEVES-CASTAÑO was convicted of possession of a machine gun, and possessing a firearm within 1000' of a school. The 1st Circuit overturned her conviction for possession of a machine gun (which is interesting reading in itself), but upheld the GFSZ Act of 1995 conviction. Altho the gun in question was in her apartment (in a public housing project), she did not challenge the law on the exception for guns on "private" property, but rather argued that the 1000' requirement was unconstitutionally vague, because it did not specify how it should be measured (e.g. from the school property line? from the building?) The appeals court ruled against her, citing various other cases and laws, with distance measurements, but in the end basically said she was so close to the school, it didn't matter how it was measured, she was too close.

The Sarge wrote:
I really only see this being enforced if something else is happening and they add this charge to the "list"....

On the cases I have (re-)discovered, this is typically what happens, and in a number of them the "something else" was vastly more illegal.

But, it does make what should be perfectly valid conduct (i.e. a license holder passing by with a CHL from another state and a gun) illegal, and I do not have unlimited faith in the discretion of prosecutors and police. E.g. some place like Houston under the recent reign of a certain prosecutor, or say Philadelphia. Any inadvertent disclosure that one has an out-of-state license due to something like a traffic accident, or witnessing an event, or whathaveyou, could prove very troublesome.

Here is one of the cases I have run across.
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/173340" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is an interesting read for several reasons. Tait was indicted by a federal grand jury with being a felon in possession of a firearm and having a gun on school property in violation of the GFSZ Act, after he was arrested by local police for placing a loaded gun against the neck of a student while the property of an Alabama high school. (So much for the locals not enforcing federal law). I can find no info about what happened with the original arrest. Tait filed a motion in Federal District Court to dismiss both federal charges based on exceptions in the applicable law -- and succeeded.

Altho he had been convicted of three felonies in Michigan and served prison time, Michigan law restores a felon's rights once the sentence has been completed (which is one of the exceptions of the felon-in-possession law). Also, he had a concealed permit issued by the state (Alabama, where now lived) in which the school zone was located. The Government appealed and argues six ways from Sunday that a) he really didn't have his rights restored, and b) Alabama's concealed handgun law didn't qualify ANY licensee for the exception in the GFSZ Act because it was too lax and that Tait didn't meet Alabama's licensing qualifications anyway, and therefore his license was invalid.

The USCA, 11th Circuit didn't buy the government's arguments, and rejected the appeal.

Tait won, as he should have, but he should not have had to jump through all those hoops in the first place, at least as far as the GFSZ goes.

The Sarge wrote:Just for grins I called the Sheriffs Dept and asked "With no CHL can I carry a loaded handgun concealed in my car while I drive through a school zone without stopping as I am traveling..."
Took a few minutes :) But she came back and said as long as it is concealed...yes....
So obviously there is significant confusion!
Now I know we all have our Texas CHL but there is a lot of confusion on this subject....hopefully the CHL instructor will chime in here.....

I would not try to enlighten them. Just sayin'.

As practical matter, if you simply drive by a school with your gun, without incident, who is to know? But that does not make it legal.

Keith B posted the law, read it and see if you can find any exception for being on a public road, other than having a CHL from the correct state, being a cop, having permission from the school, etc etc. There isn't one.

I had a file of prosecutions related to this law, but it seems to be corrupted. If I can reconstitute it, I will post on it here.

In the grand scheme of this, this is just one decision factor in whether to get a TX vs UT, but it should not be ignored.

Many here in Texas get Utah Non Res CHL's. ...

There is one small catch. The federal Gun Free School Zone Act makes it a crime to have a gun within 1000 feet of an elementary or high school, unless you have a concealed handgun license issued by the state in which the school zone is located (or it is unloaded and locked up or you are a cop, etc). There have not been many prosecutions under this law, but there have been some. On a practical basis, the risk of being caught seems small, but it is something you may wish to consider. I don't worry about it much when I go to other states and drive around, but I like having my Tx CHL when I am repeatedly passing all the schools in my home area.

1. For the shooting test for the CHL, you can shoot with either a semi-auto or a revolver. If you qualify with a semi-auto, your CHL will be marked for semi-auto and you can legally carry concealed either a semi-auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver, your CHL will be marked for revolver, and you can legally carry concealed only a revolver. Even if you really only want a revolver, I highly recommend you qual with a semi-auto (it ain't hard) anyway.

2. Dunno about this one.

3. I just checked -- I'm fresh out of offensive teams. Sorry.