The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
This brings up a question. How does the Federal Gun Free Zone law apply when out of our state of residence and licensing state? Appreciate any clarification.TVGuy wrote:I've open carried in Oklahoma a few times and I have to say that nobody even noticed. I remember the first time was in a convenience store next to a middle school. It was right after school had been let out and it was packed with kids and parents. Glock 19 on my hip and I don't think a soul in the store even noticed it was there.
IANAL, but my understanding is that if the state has reciprocity and your license is legal there GFZ does not apply for carrying.mojo84 wrote:This brings up a question. How does the Federal Gun Free Zone law apply when out of our state of residence and licensing state? Appreciate any clarification.TVGuy wrote:I've open carried in Oklahoma a few times and I have to say that nobody even noticed. I remember the first time was in a convenience store next to a middle school. It was right after school had been let out and it was packed with kids and parents. Glock 19 on my hip and I don't think a soul in the store even noticed it was there.
That is not quite true. The GFZA only recognizes and allows someone to be carrying a gun within that zone if they are licensed in the state that they are in. Reciprocity does not count in this case. Of course, there are other exceptions such as if you reside within a GFZ, but that's not the issue here.TVGuy wrote:IANAL, but my understanding is that if the state has reciprocity and your license is legal there GFZ does not apply for carrying.mojo84 wrote:This brings up a question. How does the Federal Gun Free Zone law apply when out of our state of residence and licensing state? Appreciate any clarification.TVGuy wrote:I've open carried in Oklahoma a few times and I have to say that nobody even noticed. I remember the first time was in a convenience store next to a middle school. It was right after school had been let out and it was packed with kids and parents. Glock 19 on my hip and I don't think a soul in the store even noticed it was there.
I'm aware of that, I've heard both sides on this issue. Some are of the opinion that one is considered to be "licensed by the state" includes reciprocity.C-dub wrote:That is not quite true. The GFZA only recognizes and allows someone to be carrying a gun within that zone if they are licensed in the state that they are in. Reciprocity does not count in this case. Of course, there are other exceptions such as if you reside within a GFZ, but that's not the issue here.TVGuy wrote:IANAL, but my understanding is that if the state has reciprocity and your license is legal there GFZ does not apply for carrying.mojo84 wrote:This brings up a question. How does the Federal Gun Free Zone law apply when out of our state of residence and licensing state? Appreciate any clarification.TVGuy wrote:I've open carried in Oklahoma a few times and I have to say that nobody even noticed. I remember the first time was in a convenience store next to a middle school. It was right after school had been let out and it was packed with kids and parents. Glock 19 on my hip and I don't think a soul in the store even noticed it was there.
You might be right. What are the alternatives?Scott in Houston wrote:If it passes, there will be a 30.07 clause much like the current 30.06 allowing businesses to post.
The reason this all scares me is because many businesses do not post 30.06 because they are generally clueless that people are actually carrying in their business.
They are not posted as a result of their just living in denial and/or not thinking about it.
But…
So many would tell you verbally, if you were dumb enough to ask, whether carrying was ok on in their business. They would almost all say "no". And if it was made readily apparent that many patrons carried concealed, they would post 30.06.
Well, 30.07 brings attention to this. As soon as a business sees an open carry and then decides to post 30.07, the odds are, they'll research and post both. Therefore, I would be willing to bet that we see more "gun free" (aka death) zones arise.
Where am I wrong? I know there have to many who disagree, so please let me know. I'd love to not feel this way.
My preference would be that no sign carries the force of law to ban any sort of carry, and if someone wants to ban firearms on their property, they need to actually ensure no firearms enter the property, with armed security guards manning metal detectors. Relying on voluntary compliance with a sign is just a feel-good measure. I'm sure the security guards will appreciate when people wanting to enter the property open carry, as it will be much easier for the guards to figure out who's carrying.ScooterSissy wrote: You might be right. What are the alternatives?
CleverNickname wrote:My preference would be that no sign carries the force of law to ban any sort of carry, and if someone wants to ban firearms on their property, they need to actually ensure no firearms enter the property, with armed security guards manning metal detectors. Relying on voluntary compliance with a sign is just a feel-good measure. I'm sure the security guards will appreciate when people wanting to enter the property open carry, as it will be much easier for the guards to figure out who's carrying.ScooterSissy wrote: You might be right. What are the alternatives?
No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.mojo84 wrote:CleverNickname wrote:My preference would be that no sign carries the force of law to ban any sort of carry, and if someone wants to ban firearms on their property, they need to actually ensure no firearms enter the property, with armed security guards manning metal detectors. Relying on voluntary compliance with a sign is just a feel-good measure. I'm sure the security guards will appreciate when people wanting to enter the property open carry, as it will be much easier for the guards to figure out who's carrying.ScooterSissy wrote: You might be right. What are the alternatives?
Are you a property owner? If so, would you mind not being able to control who comes onto your property or place of business with a gun exposed or concealed?
This is not a personal attack. I am challenging the poster's premise that gun carry rights trump private property rights.
That creates an unreasonable burden on the property owner. You can choose to go elsewhere if you don't like the terms of entry.CleverNickname wrote:No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.mojo84 wrote:CleverNickname wrote:My preference would be that no sign carries the force of law to ban any sort of carry, and if someone wants to ban firearms on their property, they need to actually ensure no firearms enter the property, with armed security guards manning metal detectors. Relying on voluntary compliance with a sign is just a feel-good measure. I'm sure the security guards will appreciate when people wanting to enter the property open carry, as it will be much easier for the guards to figure out who's carrying.ScooterSissy wrote: You might be right. What are the alternatives?
Are you a property owner? If so, would you mind not being able to control who comes onto your property or place of business with a gun exposed or concealed?
This is not a personal attack. I am challenging the poster's premise that gun carry rights trump private property rights.
Would you be willing to do all of this on your personal property?CleverNickname wrote: No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.
There is no case law because the law itself is clear. Although, it would be interesting if someone challenged it based on reciprocity and won. However, here is the part that is clear.TVGuy wrote:I'm aware of that, I've heard both sides on this issue. Some are of the opinion that one is considered to be "licensed by the state" includes reciprocity.C-dub wrote:That is not quite true. The GFZA only recognizes and allows someone to be carrying a gun within that zone if they are licensed in the state that they are in. Reciprocity does not count in this case. Of course, there are other exceptions such as if you reside within a GFZ, but that's not the issue here.TVGuy wrote:IANAL, but my understanding is that if the state has reciprocity and your license is legal there GFZ does not apply for carrying.mojo84 wrote:This brings up a question. How does the Federal Gun Free Zone law apply when out of our state of residence and licensing state? Appreciate any clarification.TVGuy wrote:I've open carried in Oklahoma a few times and I have to say that nobody even noticed. I remember the first time was in a convenience store next to a middle school. It was right after school had been let out and it was packed with kids and parents. Glock 19 on my hip and I don't think a soul in the store even noticed it was there.
Along the same lines, MPA does not cover people against the GFZ act either. I'm yet to hear of any case law against someone in either one of these scenarios that was otherwise carrying lawfully.
Code: Select all
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B):
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
[b](ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located[/b] 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;Sure, why wouldn't I?Winchster wrote:Would you be willing to do all of this on your personal property?CleverNickname wrote: No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.
MPA as well. I can't imagine how many people unknowingly violate GFZs across the country every day.CleverNickname wrote:Sure, why wouldn't I?Winchster wrote:Would you be willing to do all of this on your personal property?CleverNickname wrote: No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.
And as far as reciprocity and the GFSZ law, it would be nice if Cornyn's reciprocity bill changed the GFSZ law to explicitly allow any other carry licenses that were recognized by the state where the GFSZ is located.
I have no doubt that there a many. There are some states and departments that don't enforce the GFSZA or even charge anyone with it unless it is a tack on thing for other crimes committed.TVGuy wrote:MPA as well. I can't imagine how many people unknowingly violate GFZs across the country every day.CleverNickname wrote:Sure, why wouldn't I?Winchster wrote:Would you be willing to do all of this on your personal property?CleverNickname wrote: No, I don't own property that's open to the public. But I'm not arguing that a property owner shouldn't be able to ban firearms. I'm arguing that if they want to ban firearms, then they need to actually take active measures to ensure that firearms are not brought onto their property, not just passively posting a sign which does nothing to prevent someone with ill intent from carrying a gun.
And as far as reciprocity and the GFSZ law, it would be nice if Cornyn's reciprocity bill changed the GFSZ law to explicitly allow any other carry licenses that were recognized by the state where the GFSZ is located.