TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

SherwoodForest wrote:State reciprocity agreements, or unilateral procalamations recognizing the validity of your out-of-state license/permit IS LICENSING/PERMITTING you to carry while in that state subject to such restrictions that apply to that state's issued license/permit.

Incorrect. The Gun Free School Zone Act has an exemption for you if you have a CHL issued from the state that you are in. So, if you are in Texas and have a Texas CHL and since Texas allows you to carry on school property, then you are OK. If you have a Florida CHL, then you are not exempt in Texas, but you would be if you travel to Florida. If you travel to Florida with your Texas CHL, then you are not exempt even if Florida allows their permitees to carry on school property.

Now, with that said, just as Charles stated there are no cases that I am aware of where a CHL holder or other person has been arrested for possesion of a firearm in a GFSZ unless it was an 'add on' charge and they were charged with something else more severe (not a traffic ticket or minor infraction.) If anyone can show us a case to the contrary, then please point us to it.

Keith -- I'd like to point out that you are correct in the way the law reads, but as Charles said in his post above...

There's a good argument that a reciprocity agreement constitutes "issuance" for purposes of this law since it is clearly a ratification.

So, although it would mean fighting a court case, at least there IS a defense strategy should somebody be charged with violations of the GFSZ act with an out-of-state license from a state with a reciprocal agreement with the state in which the school zone was located.

All it will take is an execuitive order to do it the law is in place
one order from Obama is all it takes

Regular folks may not have been persecuted (oops, is that a typo?) this way yet, but it looks like the perfect way for Obama to use an Executive order to push gun control. The law is already in place, so no Congressional action is needed. Now, just start putting out "random" federal checkpoints in gun free zones in states like Texas or Wyoming. They'll soon have plenty of examples, oops, I mean criminals, who were violating federal law and endangering our kids. Those scofflaws would then serve as further examples of why we need much more stringent gun laws. In addition, they would show all the people in blue states that people from red states are all a bunch of gun nuts who are not to be listened to.

brainman wrote:Regular folks may not have been persecuted (oops, is that a typo?) this way yet, but it looks like the perfect way for Obama to use an Executive order to push gun control. The law is already in place, so no Congressional action is needed. Now, just start putting out "random" federal checkpoints in gun free zones in states like Texas or Wyoming. They'll soon have plenty of examples, oops, I mean criminals, who were violating federal law and endangering our kids. Those scofflaws would then serve as further examples of why we need much more stringent gun laws. In addition, they would show all the people in blue states that people from red states are all a bunch of gun nuts who are not to be listened to.

Executive order to whom?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Executive order to whom?

Chas.

Any federal law enforcement agency he can push into it. ATF, FBI, I'm sure they could figure a way to bring Homeland Security into it. Heck, in border states, they could probably find a way to bring Border Patrol into it.

I don't believe that whether it's strictly legal or not is part of the question, as I think he's going to push it as far as he can. Funding could be a problem, but, there are probably ways around that too.

brainman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Executive order to whom?

Chas.

Any federal law enforcement agency he can push into it. ATF, FBI, I'm sure they could figure a way to bring Homeland Security into it. Heck, in border states, they could probably find a way to bring Border Patrol into it.

Do you really believe this? This is a serious question?

Chas.

Charles,

On my trip west last Summer, we were stopped at three different locations, on freeways where ICE and Border Patrol checkpoint officers were looking in the cars, circling with dogs and asking if we were American citizens. BTW, they don't have much of a sense of humor when you answer with, "Que?"

Though they did not check "papers" I drove away needing a shower. I wonder how easy it would be for them to expand their "checks" with ID checks and dogs hitting on powder residue, etc. Any thoughts?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

brainman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Executive order to whom?

Chas.

Any federal law enforcement agency he can push into it. ATF, FBI, I'm sure they could figure a way to bring Homeland Security into it. Heck, in border states, they could probably find a way to bring Border Patrol into it.

Do you really believe this? This is a serious question?

Chas.

Are you asking a serious question? Or are you just expressing disdain for my opinion?

The Obama administration has expressly stated that they intend to look at using executive orders to deal with guns. This is not in question.
The Obama administration has stated that they're considering more strict enforcement of current laws. This is not in question.
Obama has a different view of the constitution than you and I. This is not in question.
It is already illegal (with exceptions) to have a gun a school zone. This is not in question.
While they don't generally prosecute people under this law, they can if they want to. This is not in question.

So, to the serious question: Why wouldn't I think that the administration would want to increase enforcement of gun free school zones?

Do I think they'll put out checkpoints? Not necessarily, but would it surprise me? No. Could they? Sure, why not? It's simply a matter of time and funds. I really don't see how that would be much of an obstacle with the current push for gun control.

I'm really surprised that you are telling us how people don't have to worry about being sent to jail for a violation of a federal law already on the books when you are also telling us that you won't support a state that says they won't enforce a federal law because people could go to jail for it. As you said, "there's a good argument" that a reciprocity agreement constitutes issuance, but that hasn't been tested. Are you trying to convince someone to be a test case? I don't imagine that will go well in the current "gun owners are evil" climate with an administration that is looking to crack down.

It's about the poor sucker who lives near a school and believes he won't get busted for carrying under MPA or a out-of-state CHL. He's the one who'll be convicted and going to a federal prison as a convicted felon.

brainman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

brainman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Executive order to whom?

Chas.

Any federal law enforcement agency he can push into it. ATF, FBI, I'm sure they could figure a way to bring Homeland Security into it. Heck, in border states, they could probably find a way to bring Border Patrol into it.

Do you really believe this? This is a serious question?

Chas.

Are you asking a serious question? Or are you just expressing disdain for my opinion?

The Obama administration has expressly stated that they intend to look at using executive orders to deal with guns. This is not in question.
The Obama administration has stated that they're considering more strict enforcement of current laws. This is not in question.
Obama has a different view of the constitution than you and I. This is not in question.
It is already illegal (with exceptions) to have a gun a school zone. This is not in question.
While they don't generally prosecute people under this law, they can if they want to. This is not in question.

So, to the serious question: Why wouldn't I think that the administration would want to increase enforcement of gun free school zones?

Do I think they'll put out checkpoints? Not necessarily, but would it surprise me? No. Could they? Sure, why not? It's simply a matter of time and funds. I really don't see how that would be much of an obstacle with the current push for gun control.

I'm really surprised that you are telling us how people don't have to worry about being sent to jail for a violation of a federal law already on the books when you are also telling us that you won't support a state that says they won't enforce a federal law because people could go to jail for it. As you said, "there's a good argument" that a reciprocity agreement constitutes issuance, but that hasn't been tested. Are you trying to convince someone to be a test case? I don't imagine that will go well in the current "gun owners are evil" climate with an administration that is looking to crack down.

It's about the poor sucker who lives near a school and believes he won't get busted for carrying under MPA or a out-of-state CHL. He's the one who'll be convicted and going to a federal prison as a convicted felon.

When the absurdity of your arguments is pointed out, you change your position. You were talking about an executive order to federal agents to enforce the federal gun free school zone law. There are tens of thousands of schools in the U.S. and if every single man and woman carrying any kind of federal badge were assigned to schools there still wouldn't be enough.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:[

When the absurdity of your arguments is pointed out, you change your position. You were talking about an executive order to federal agents to enforce the federal gun free school zone law. There are tens of thousands of schools in the U.S. and if every single man and woman carrying any kind of federal badge were assigned to schools there still wouldn't be enough.

Chas.

I haven't changed my position at all. I still think it's a perfect way for Obama to push gun control. My position does differ in that he probably doesn't need to use an "executive order" when he could just make a policy directive to his agencies. But, I don't know all the legalities of such things, so I could be wrong.

You don't have to place an agent in every school zone everyday to nail people for carrying in a school zone. Just like random DUI checkpoints can't be everywhere, but still serve to make life difficult for drunks, anybody caught in whatever enforcement action the feds do would still be caught. And even if they didn't catch many people, they could easily use those to make an example.

Even if you get off any prosecution think of the expense and hassle it will cause for you and your family
All Obama has to do is to jerk funding from the Local police to get them to co-operate with his anti-gun schemes

brainman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:[

When the absurdity of your arguments is pointed out, you change your position. You were talking about an executive order to federal agents to enforce the federal gun free school zone law. There are tens of thousands of schools in the U.S. and if every single man and woman carrying any kind of federal badge were assigned to schools there still wouldn't be enough.

Chas.

I haven't changed my position at all. I still think it's a perfect way for Obama to push gun control. My position does differ in that he probably doesn't need to use an "executive order" when he could just make a policy directive to his agencies. But, I don't know all the legalities of such things, so I could be wrong.

You don't have to place an agent in every school zone everyday to nail people for carrying in a school zone. Just like random DUI checkpoints can't be everywhere, but still serve to make life difficult for drunks, anybody caught in whatever enforcement action the feds do would still be caught. And even if they didn't catch many people, they could easily use those to make an example.

brainman, while we are on the subject of if's...If there were a checkpoint at random schools in the area that I live, it would be impossible for me to commute with a firearm. I thought about what you said and there is no way for me to travel in any direction without passing a school. I still feel this scenario is highly unlikely, but it would present a rather sizable problem for me. I had have thought about many "what if's" and that one had not occurred to me, thanks for that.

While a CHL gives you the ability to have a gun within the 1000 ft range of the Gun Free Zone law, I don't believe motor vehicle carry law does the same. So a nonCHL carrying in their car driving past a school, if caught would be liable under the Gun Free Zone Law. I can't believe it would take long in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc to find someone with a gun otherwise legally in their car traveling through a school gun free zone. They don't need to go after everybody, just a few to make examples of.

Will Obama do this, probably not. But given the current we have to do something atmosphere, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Charles,

No offence but one of the things I am seeing with the NRA and frankly you right now is that you are not thinking outside the box like Obama and the gun grabbers are. This is not the time for BAU thinking. I fear that our side will not be ready when they do something radical and unexpected.

stroo wrote:While a CHL gives you the ability to have a gun within the 1000 ft range of the Gun Free Zone law, I don't believe motor vehicle carry law does the same. So a nonCHL carrying in their car driving past a school, if caught would be liable under the Gun Free Zone Law. I can't believe it would take long in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, etc to find someone with a gun otherwise legally in their car traveling through a school gun free zone. They don't need to go after everybody, just a few to make examples of.

Will Obama do this, probably not. But given the current we have to do something atmosphere, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Charles,

No offence but one of the things I am seeing with the NRA and frankly you right now is that you are not thinking outside the box like Obama and the gun grabbers are. This is not the time for BAU thinking. I fear that our side will not be ready when they do something radical and unexpected.

It is also not a time to be running amok with paranoia. We need to focus on what they really are trying to target (AWB reinstatement, high capacity magazine bans, mandatory FFL transfers for ALL sales, etc.) While there definately are those groups like the Brady's and such that would love to totally wipe out all gun ownership in the U.S., it is NOT going to happen. The logic og trying to set up check-point 'traps' for gun owners that are car carrying without a CHL in a GFSZ is way over the top.

Let's get behind the one organization that can really make a difference because of their existing voice with Congress and the current adimistration and let them lead us to fight what we really are up against instead of throwing out a bunch of 'well they could...'s.

In the box thinking is going to be the death of us. Obama and the gun control folks are not thinking in the box.

I agree that it is improbable that checkpoint will be set up by any school to make an example of a few people. But Obama has already done things that were improbable at the time.

I just want Charles and the NRA to be ready for anything. Because if they aren't, Obama will run roughshod over us.

Enough said.