TexasCHLforum.com

koine2002 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:The Federal GFSZA prohibits you from carrying a loaded firearm within 1000' of a school if you are not "licensed to
do so by the State". The ATF interprets this to mean that the State in which the school zone is located must issue the license. I think that is debatable, and no court has ruled on this question, so I guess you'd have to risk being the "test case" if you open carried in a Texas School Zone using an AZ license.

The language of the law seems pretty clear. It reads

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

That's from the text of the law at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922. The relevant section is (q)(2)(b).

So if Texas recognizes a license from AZ in order to "license" you to carry in Texas, is that equivalent to being licensed by Texas?

There are federal court cases and constitutional clauses ( "full faith and credit to official acts") and formal reciprocity agreements, that may apply. That.... and the law is likely unconstitutional on its face given the SCOTUS rejection of its predecessor in 1990.

But in the meantime be careful when parking off of postal property that you are not within 1000' of a school.

Other then GFSZ's I believe you're ok.
The 1000 ft school zone stuff is muddy with non-TX CHL.

It's a darn shame a citizen just about has to be a legal scholar in order for him/her to excercise their Constitutional Right.

ScottDLS wrote:So if Texas recognizes a license from AZ in order to "license" you to carry in Texas, is that equivalent to being licensed by Texas?

There are federal court cases and constitutional clauses ( "full faith and credit to official acts") and formal reciprocity agreements, that may apply. That.... and the law is likely unconstitutional on its face given the SCOTUS rejection of its predecessor in 1990.

But in the meantime be careful when parking off of postal property that you are not within 1000' of a school.

I would think so.

1) Carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is legal carry.
2) The only legal carry in TX is licensed carry.

Therefore, carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is licensed carry.

TangoX-ray wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:So if Texas recognizes a license from AZ in order to "license" you to carry in Texas, is that equivalent to being licensed by Texas?

There are federal court cases and constitutional clauses ( "full faith and credit to official acts") and formal reciprocity agreements, that may apply. That.... and the law is likely unconstitutional on its face given the SCOTUS rejection of its predecessor in 1990.

But in the meantime be careful when parking off of postal property that you are not within 1000' of a school.

I would think so.

1) Carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is legal carry.
2) The only legal carry in TX is licensed carry.

Therefore, carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is licensed carry.

The GFSZ thing is pretty ridiculous when you consider that, for example, you cannot travel eastbound on the Westpark tollway in Houston without passing within 1,000 feet of school property. That is a pretty major roadway in this city.

I am sure there are other, similar examples.

TangoX-ray wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:So if Texas recognizes a license from AZ in order to "license" you to carry in Texas, is that equivalent to being licensed by Texas?

There are federal court cases and constitutional clauses ( "full faith and credit to official acts") and formal reciprocity agreements, that may apply. That.... and the law is likely unconstitutional on its face given the SCOTUS rejection of its predecessor in 1990.

But in the meantime be careful when parking off of postal property that you are not within 1000' of a school.

I would think so.

1) Carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is legal carry.
2) The only legal carry in TX is licensed carry.

Therefore, carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is licensed carry.

That is not the ATF's interpretation of the law. I disagree with them, but I am not the United States Attorney for this area or one of his AUSA's, so my opinion counts as much as you paid for it. $0.00

ScottDLS wrote:

TangoX-ray wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:So if Texas recognizes a license from AZ in order to "license" you to carry in Texas, is that equivalent to being licensed by Texas?

There are federal court cases and constitutional clauses ( "full faith and credit to official acts") and formal reciprocity agreements, that may apply. That.... and the law is likely unconstitutional on its face given the SCOTUS rejection of its predecessor in 1990.

But in the meantime be careful when parking off of postal property that you are not within 1000' of a school.

I would think so.

1) Carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is legal carry.
2) The only legal carry in TX is licensed carry.

Therefore, carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is licensed carry.

That is not the ATF's interpretation of the law. I disagree with them, but I am not the United States Attorney for this area or one of his AUSA's, so my opinion counts as much as you paid for it. $0.00

It is licensed carry, but ultimately, the license wasn't issued by Texas. (Despite my yearnings and "logic")

ScottDLS wrote:

TangoX-ray wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:So if Texas recognizes a license from AZ in order to "license" you to carry in Texas, is that equivalent to being licensed by Texas?

There are federal court cases and constitutional clauses ( "full faith and credit to official acts") and formal reciprocity agreements, that may apply. That.... and the law is likely unconstitutional on its face given the SCOTUS rejection of its predecessor in 1990.

But in the meantime be careful when parking off of postal property that you are not within 1000' of a school.

I would think so.

1) Carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is legal carry.
2) The only legal carry in TX is licensed carry.

Therefore, carrying under an accepted, out-of-state permit is licensed carry.

That is not the ATF's interpretation of the law. I disagree with them, but I am not the United States Attorney for this area or one of his AUSA's, so my opinion counts as much as you paid for it. $0.00

So according to the ATF, the local constable who drops his kid off at school on the way to work, and who does not have a LTC (relies on LEOSA) is committing a felony if he has a weapon in the car? There is no way this law is Constitutional for so many reasons....

Also, what about states that allow unlicensed carry? MPA is a form of unlicensed carry, just with very limited parameters on where and how. It seems like the same rules would apply.....

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Also, what about states that allow unlicensed carry? MPA is a form of unlicensed carry, just with very limited parameters on where and how. It seems like the same rules would apply.....

Per ATF no one in Vermont can go within 1000' of a school armed since Vermont doesn't issue licenses, they have been "constitutional carry" at least 40 years.

The law is stupid.

The Annoyed Man wrote:The law is stupid.

And the stupid GOP allowed it to continue even when they had the Presidency and both parts of Congress.

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:The law is stupid.

And the stupid GOP allowed it to continue even when they had the Presidency and both parts of Congress.

A Yup!

George Bush's fault?

TexasFlash wrote:George Bush's fault?

George H W Bush's fault since he signed the original one in 1990, then Clinton signed the revised one in 1995 after the first one was rejected by SCOTUS.