Conflicting Information - Real Deal About LA School "Zones"

[estcrh]

If you're NOT carrying concealed, then you DON'T need a permit to OC in a STATE GFSZ. If you're not carrying concealed then you're NOT in violation of RS 14:95 and you don't need a permit.

It should be obvious that I was talking about the FEDERAL law not state law as the state has already been changed. The federal law requires a state conceal carry permit to legally have a gun in a gun free school zone. There is no Federal or state requirement that the gun be concealed.

 

[charlie12]

I have seen threads where Jindal eliminated the STATE school zone thing for permit holders. On the Concealed Handgun Unit website it says they are off limits. What is the deal with this. If you get a resident LA permit and you are out walking near (within 1000 FT) are you legal or not)? I am not talking entering the grounds, just walking with a resident LA CCW permit and carrying concealed?

You wouldn't have to have a La resident CHP it can be from another state as long as we honor that state. You can CC with your CHP right up to the school property line, just can't go on the school property or a school bus.

 

[turbodog]

If you're NOT carrying concealed, then you DON'T need a permit to OC in a STATE GFSZ. If you're not carrying concealed then you're NOT in violation of RS 14:95 and you don't need a permit.

As far as I know there is no such thing as separate Federal or State GFSZ's.

Federal law mandated such a thing as a GFSZ, as in creating the concept of such a thing as a Gun Free School Zone when there wasn't any such thing before. The State law just added further restrictions to the Federal (such as a LA. CHP NOT giving permission to carry in one).

There are no separate ZONES, one of which allows and one that doesn't. It's simply a Zone or AREA if you will, in which certain Federal and State laws laws both apply. One set of laws for this ONE zone concept allows for some exemptions, the other had it's own set of exemptions, some the same, some different. The State GFSZ law has since been modified to bring it more in line with the exemptions granted under the Federal version, in that it now allows LA. CHP holders to carry concealed in GFSZ's in Louisiana.

You may be prosecuted under one set of laws or the other (or both depending on circumstances) but it's one zone and as such, OC'ing in one is not allowed.

 

[georg jetson]

As far as I know there is no such thing as separate Federal or State GFSZ's. .

They are seperate because one is defined in federal law and the other is defined in state law. It just so happens that both the state and federal definitions include the 1000 ft. area so they apply to the same geographical area around a school.

Federal law mandated such a thing as a GFSZ, as in creating the concept of such a thing as a Gun Free School Zone when there wasn't any such thing before. The State law just added further restrictions to the Federal (such as a LA. CHP NOT giving permission to carry in one).

Wrong. They are independent of each other. If you are charged with violatimng the state GFSZ law then you will be arraigned in a state(local) court. If you violate the fed law then you will be arraigned in a fed court

There are no separate ZONES, one of which allows and one that doesn't. It's simply a Zone or AREA if you will, in which certain Federal and State laws laws both apply. One set of laws for this ONE zone concept allows for some exemptions, the other had it's own set of exemptions, some the same, some different. The State GFSZ law has since been modified to bring it more in line with the exemptions granted under the Federal version, in that it now allows LA. CHP holders to carry concealed in GFSZ's in Louisiana.

They ARE seperate zones BECAUSE they each have their own defining statute. It just so happens that the fed zone and state zone have exactly the same footprint geographically.

You may be prosecuted under one set of laws or the other (or both depending on circumstances) but it's one zone and as such, OC'ing in one is not allowed.

Wrong.

You may NOT be prosecuted under both. Prosecution more than once on the same set of facts violates the DOUBLE JEOPARDY clause of the US Constitution.

Ocing is "allowed" in BOTH.

In the case of the fed zone, it is "allowed" "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 obtain s 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;"
Notice there is NO requirement to have the permit ON your person while in a GFSZ.

In the case of the state zone, Ocing is constitutionally protected.

As an additional point, we should be pushing our fed represenatives to ammend the section I quote above to read simply this...

"If it is according to the laws of the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State."

Perhaps when Ron Paul wins the 2012 election, he'll work to have the entire law repealed.

 

[turbodog]

You may NOT be prosecuted under both. Prosecution more than once on the same set of facts violates the DOUBLE JEOPARDY clause of the US Constitution.

Ok Brother Georg, I'll give you that one. As far as one zone or two, it's tOHmato/tAHmato to me. It's a 1000 ft exclusionary zone either way.

Ocing is "allowed" in BOTH.

In the case of the fed zone, it is "allowed" "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 obtain s 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;"
Notice there is NO requirement to have the permit ON your person while in a GFSZ. {

If one is going to claim that your carrying in a GFSZ because you posses a permit you'd best have it with you don't you think? In fact, it's required if approached by LE per the LSP concealed handgun unit.

Per your statement above, one must be licensed to carry in your state. The only license to carry here is concealed, ergo, only La. CHP holders can carry in a GFSZ in Louisiana. Open carry is not licensed in Louisiana, therefore one may not open carry here or violate Federal law. The Fed law also says that if you are not possessing a state license, the firearm may be carried but must be unloaded and locked in a case.

Louisiana GFSZ law says:
(4) The possession of a firearm occurring within one thousand feet of school property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1 or R.S. 40:1379.3.

"In accordance with" means it must be carried concealed in order to get an exemption from the GFSZ law via use of a CHP.

In the case of the state zone, Ocing is constitutionally protected.

While I agree with this interpretation in theory, it hasn't been proven in court and I don't know anyone willing to be the guinea pig.
Until a court case says open carry is a Const. protected activity, I'll assume it's not as far as LE goes.

 

[georg jetson]

Ok Brother Georg, I'll give you that one. As far as one zone or two, it's tOHmato/tAHmato to me. It's a 1000 ft exclusionary zone either way.


If one is going to claim that your carrying in a GFSZ because you posses a permit you'd best have it with you don't you think? In fact, it's required if approached by LE per the LSP concealed handgun unit.

Not if you are Ocing.

Per your statement above, one must be licensed to carry in your state. The only license to carry here is concealed, ergo, only La. CHP holders can carry in a GFSZ in Louisiana. Open carry is not licensed in Louisiana, therefore one may not open carry here or violate Federal law. The Fed law also says that if you are not possessing a state license, the firearm may be carried but must be unloaded and locked in a case.

Brother Tdog... You're getting things confused. Read the fed law again. There is no REQUIREMENT to do anything other than OBTAIN the license as long as the license fulfills the fed requirements. The fed law and the state law are 2 different things. They MUST be treated as such because fed criminal law cannot be prosecuted at the state level and vice-versa.

Louisiana GFSZ law says:
(4) The possession of a firearm occurring within one thousand feet of school property and entirely on private property, or entirely within a private residence, or in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1 or R.S. 40:1379.3.

"In accordance with" means it must be carried concealed in order to get an exemption from the GFSZ law via use of a CHP.

Partly true if you refer to STATE law, UNTRUE at the fed level
Also partly untrue because at the state level one CAN OC. We all know that La. state GFSZ law says this...
C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to:
(5) Any constitutionally protected activity which cannot be regulated by the state, such as a firearm contained entirely within a motor vehicle.

So if one is carrying openly then Title 40 codes are irrelevant.

While I agree with this interpretation in theory, it hasn't been proven in court and I don't know anyone willing to be the guinea pig.
Until a court case says open carry is a Const. protected activity, I'll assume it's not as far as LE goes.

It is CLEAR that OC is Constitutionally protected. I would gladly OC in a GFSZ except for the FED law. We need to get rid of the FED law. However, you are correct that it may not be clear to an leo... particularly one on the south shore.

 

[sraacke]

"In accordance with" means it must be carried concealed in order to get an exemption from the GFSZ law via use of a CHP.

Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning.

 

[georg jetson]

"In accordance with" means it must be carried concealed in order to get an exemption from the GFSZ law via use of a CHP.

Which is what I've been arguing from the beginning.

Well then you have been wrong from the beginning. The STATE law says "In accordance with"... NOT the FED law.

Edit - let me try explaining this a bit more...

Here's the fed law containing the exception...
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(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;

Now, if someone is charged with carrying a firearm in a fed GFSZ, then their motion to dismiss would include this argument.
Defendant WAS "licenced to posses a firearm" AND that license requires that "law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license."

Why would a judge deny such a motion when it can be shown through judicial notice that the defendant has such a license?

 

[estcrh]

"In accordance with" means it must be carried concealed in order to get an exemption from the GFSZ law via use of a CHP.



.

Can you show us the regulation that actually states that your gun must be concealed in order for your concealed permit to be valid? Just quoting "in accordance with" does not cut it.

Were does it state what concealed actually is, can any part of your gun be showing even a little bit and still be considered to be concealed?

Maybe I am wrong here but I have read the regulations and there does not seem to be any exact wording on what "concealed" actually means.

Does "concealed" mean that no one can tell that you have a gun on you at all as in absolutely completely concealed?

What if it is covered up by your shirt but some one can see the outline of your gun, is it then not concealed enough?

If your shirt is unbuttoned and covering your gun from the side but someone can see that you are carrying a gun when walking towards you is that still considered to be concealed?

Unless the concealed regulations specifically addresses what "concealed" means and how much of your gun needs to be concealed then there really is no requirement to have your gun concealed at all. Having the concealed permit just allows you to cover your gun up when you want to with out breaking any laws.

 

[georg jetson]

Can you show us the regulation that actually states that your gun must be concealed in order for your concealed permit to be valid? Just quoting "in accordance with" does not cut it.

Ok... I think I understand your concern. There is NO such statute.

Were does it state what concealed actually is, can any part of your gun be showing even a little bit and still be considered to be concealed?

Maybe I am wrong here but I have read the regulations and there does not seem to be any exact wording on what "concealed" actually means.

There is NO statutory definition of concealed other than what is contained in RS 14:95

Does "concealed" mean that no one can tell that you have a gun on you at all as in absolutely completely concealed?

What if it is covered up by your shirt but some one can see the outline of your gun, is it then not concealed enough?

If your shirt is unbuttoned and covering your gun from the side but someone can see that you are carrying a gun when walking towards you is that still considered to be concealed?

Unless the concealed regulations specifically addresses what "concealed" means and how much of your gun needs to be concealed then there really is no requirement to have your gun concealed at all. Having the concealed permit just allows you to cover your gun up when you want to with out breaking any laws.

Fortunately, there have been favorable La. SC cases dealing with this. See...

STATE of Louisiana
v.
Arnold R. DYER. 388 So.2d 374 (1980)
at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...onceal+and+carry+and+weapon&hl=en&as_sdt=4,19

This is a very unique case in that the defendant was arrested because the officer could see a PORTION of the handgun protruding from his pocket. Further, the defendant was charged with ATTEMPTED concealment of a firearm on his person. This case also cites other relevant cases including State v Fluker. Enjoy!!

Let me add that the dissenting opinion is in error because it leaves out a very important point. It states;

"The circumstances of a particular case may show that a person has the specific intent to conceal a weapon and has done an act tending directly toward the accomplishment of that object, despite the fact that the proscribed concealment was not in fact accomplished. Under such circumstances the person would be guilty of attempted illegal carrying of weapons."

If the "proscribed concealment was not in fact accomplished" then the person is Open Carrying.

 

[georg jetson]

Here's a case where "intent" was proven when the handle of a handgun was sticking out of a pocket. The reason "intent" could be proved is because the defendant was a convicted felon.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...onceal+and+carry+and+weapon&hl=en&as_sdt=4,19

 

[turbodog]

Can you show us the regulation that actually states that your gun must be concealed in order for your concealed permit to be valid? Just quoting "in accordance with" does not cut it.

I did not say that a permit was invalid if one carried openly. I said that if you want to claim that your carrying of a firearm in a GFSZ is legal on account of your possessing a CHP, then you had best have it concealed. To be "in accordance with" means that if you have a CHP and are carrying a sidearm, it must be concealed in order for you to legitimately claim the CHP exemption from the GFSZ law.

Were does it state what concealed actually is, can any part of your gun be showing even a little bit and still be considered to be concealed?

State vs Fluker addressed this. If enough of the firearm is exposed to confirm what it is, the firearm is not concealed.

Does "concealed" mean that no one can tell that you have a gun on you at all as in absolutely completely concealed?

Seems to me, the above court case makes that clear enough. If an observer cannot see it or can tell there's something there but is not sure whether or not it's a firearm, it's concealed.

If your shirt is unbuttoned and covering your gun from the side but someone can see that you are carrying a gun when walking towards you is that still considered to be concealed?

Decent question that. I can't answer it. LEO would probably just go ahead and bust you and let the court figure it out.

Having the concealed permit just allows you to cover your gun up when you want to with out breaking any laws.

Not true. It allows me to carry a firearm in places an OC'er can't. But then, that logic requires other people to understand what "in accordance" means.

 

[estcrh]

Here's a case where "intent" was proven when the handle of a handgun was sticking out of a pocket. The reason "intent" could be proved is because the defendant was a convicted felon.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...onceal+and+carry+and+weapon&hl=en&as_sdt=4,19

It seems that the court had to decide whether or not the defendant was intentionally open carrying and was searched illegally or if the defendant was concealing his gun and accidentally exposed enough of his gun for it to be identified. Based of the criminal history of the defendant the court decided that he had not intended to open carry and the officer was within his rights to check out this individual for a concealed permit. The defendant had not right to carry a gun so he was convicted.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress it was incumbent on the trail judge to determine whether the defendant's intent was to conceal his weapon or not based upon the evidence before him.

The only reasonable hypothesis supported by this evidence is that defendant intended to have the weapon concealed and he accidentally allowed part of it to be exposed. It is unreasonable to assume that this convicted felon intended to advertise that he was carrying a weapon at this time in this setting.

In State v. Wall, 440 So.2d 897 (La.App. 2d Cir.1983) the court found that similar evidence was sufficient to reverse the trial court's decision to suppress the weapon. In this case, considering that the trial court has denied defendant's motion, affirmation of that judgment on the appellate level is clearly warranted. There was probable cause for the arrest and the motion to suppress was properly denied.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.

 

[turbodog]

Not if you are Ocing.

If you are claiming the CHP exemption to the GFSZ you must present your CHP when approached by LEO.
Otherwise, they have no proof your claim is ligit and you will be arrested forthwith.

Brother Tdog... You're getting things confused. Read the fed law again. There is no REQUIREMENT to do anything other than OBTAIN the license as long as the license fulfills the fed requirements.

What's this then?:
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) ...snip.....

(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,....snip....;

(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

Seems to me, there is in fact a requirement (an exemption, if you will) other than having a license, or I should say an alternative to those who do not have such a license. If it's "not loaded" and "in a locked container". It's right there.

 

[georg jetson]

If you are claiming the CHP exemption to the GFSZ you must present your CHP when approached by LEO.
Otherwise, they have no proof your claim is ligit and you will be arrested forthwith.

No. If you are OCing you have NO duty to show th permit.

Arrested by who? The feds... or locals...

What's this then?:
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) ...snip.....

(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,....snip....;

(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

Seems to me, there is in fact a requirement (an exemption, if you will) other than having a license, or I should say an alternative to those who do not have such a license. If it's "not loaded" and "in a locked container". It's right there.

Yes... so... What are you pointing out here? We're not discussing (iii). We're discussing the necessity of having a CCP on your person while in a fed GFSZ vs not having the permit on your person.

 

[georg jetson]

Not true. It allows me to carry a firearm in places an OC'er can't. But then, that logic requires other people to understand what "in accordance" means.

LOL!!! YES!! YOU ARE CORRECT Tdog!!! But the only place that I can think of where this is true is in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I would most certainly have my permit on me in this situation!! However, OCing is protected by the state constitution in a state gfsz so one can OC "NOT in accordance" with CC rules BECAUSE one is NOT CCing.

 

[estcrh]

To be "in accordance with" means that if you have a CHP and are carrying a sidearm, it must be concealed in order for you to legitimately claim the exemption from the GFSZ law.

Your skirting the issue, show us anything that says you must have your gun concealed in a gun free zone when you have a concealed permit on you in order to legally be able to be in that zone with a gun. I can find no rule or regulation which states that and I would bet that you can not come up with any sentence in any regulation that specifically shows that you need to have your gun concealed in order for your concealed permit to protect you.

I am not saying you will not have some trouble convincing a law enforcement officer that you have the right to be in a gun free zone with an exposed gun as long as you have a concealed permit, but no law enforcement entity can prove that you were specifically breaking any law be being in a gun free zone with an exposed or partially exposed gun while carrying a concealed permit

.

State vs Fluker addressed this. If enough of the firearm is exposed to confirm what it is, the firearm is not concealed.

Fluker did not have a concealed permit, if he did there would not have been any court case




Having the concealed permit just allows you to cover your gun up when you want to with out breaking any laws.

Not true. It allows me to carry a firearm in places an OC'er can't. But then, that logic requires other people to understand what "in accordance" means.

NOT TRUE??? If I am open carrying and I decide to put my shirt over my gun and conceal it I can as long as I have a concealed permit and I am not in an area prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon with a permit or any gun at all, if I am open carrying and decide to conceal my gun and do not have a concealed permit then I would be breaking the law. Thats the whole meaning of the concealed carry permit, it allows you to cover up your gun when and were you want as long as it is not a prohibited area.


A concealed permit allows the owner of that permit to cover up your gun in any place not forbidden by law to carry your gun covered up, thats all it does, its not about "logic" its about what the regulation says you can and can not due. There are specific requirements and there is no specific requirement that your gun must be concealed in a gun free zone for you to be allowed to have a gun legally in that zone, If I am wrong just quote the rule or regulation that proves I am wrong.

 

[georg jetson]

Your skirting the issue, show us anything that says you must have your gun concealed in a gun free zone when you have a concealed permit on you in order to legally be able to be in that zone with a gun. I can find no rule or regulation which states that and I would bet that you can not come up with any sentence in any regulation that specifically shows that you need to have your gun concealed in order for your concealed permit to protect you.

I am not saying you will not have some trouble convincing a law enforcement officer that you have the right to be in a gun free zone with an exposed gun as long as you have a concealed permit, but no law enforcement entity can prove that you were specifically breaking any law be being in a gun free zone with an exposed or partially exposed gun while carrying a concealed permit

.






Fluker did not have a concealed permit, if he did there would not have been any court case




Having the concealed permit just allows you to cover your gun up when you want to with out breaking any laws.


NOT TRUE??? If I am open carrying and I decide to put my shirt over my gun and conceal it I can as long as I have a concealed permit and I am not in an area prohibited from carrying a concealed weapon with a permit or any gun at all, if I am open carrying and decide to conceal my gun and do not have a concealed permit then I would be breaking the law. Thats the whole meaning of the concealed carry permit, it allows you to cover up your gun when and were you want as long as it is not a prohibited area.


A concealed permit allows the owner of that permit to cover up your gun in any place not forbidden by law to carry your gun covered up, thats all it does, its not about "logic" its about what the regulation says you can and can not due. There are specific requirements and there is no specific requirement that your gun must be concealed in a gun free zone for you to be allowed to have a gun legally in that zone, If I am wrong just quote the rule or regulation that proves I am wrong.

I think our arguments are diverging.

I'm saying there is no NEED to have the permit on you in either gfsz IF you are OCing...

You're correct about the cover up issue... If you can be there with a handgun "according" to the rules of title 40 then you can have the firearm oc OR cc. But of course you MUSt have the permit on your person if you are ccing.

Also, it IS true that the cc permit allows one to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol... and the way the law is written, it appears to be so whether concealed or not.

 

[estcrh]

Here is the situation I am talking about>>

I am visiting my aunt Jane, I decide to walk down to the neighborhood pizza joint for something to eat. Since I do not trust aunt Janes neighborhood I decide to open carry my gun and as usual I take my concealed permit with me. While walking down the street on the way to the pizza joint I happen to walk through an unmarked gun free school zone. A local law enforcement officer sees me open carrying in a gun free zone and swoops in for the kill. After stopping me for questioning I tell the officer that although I did not realize I was in a gun free school zone I do have a concealed permit on me and under the law I am legally carrying my gun in the gun free zone.


Under these circumstances the law enforcement officer has 2 choices, arrest me for illegal carrying of a gun or he can accept my explanation and release me. Which is likely to happen and if arrested will the D.A. recognize my right to be in a gun free zone with an exposed gun as long as I have a concealed permit with me.

It is my belief that there would be no provable law broken by being in a gun free zone with an exposed gun as long as you have a concealed permit on you at the same time.

 

[georg jetson]

Here is the situation I am talking about>>

I am visiting my aunt Jane, I decide to walk down to the neighborhood pizza joint for something to eat. Since I do not trust aunt Janes neighborhood I decide to open carry my gun and as usual I take my concealed permit with me. While walking down the street on the way to the pizza joint I happen to walk through an unmarked gun free school zone. A local law enforcement officer sees me open carrying in a gun free zone and swoops in for the kill. After stopping me for questioning I tell the officer that although I did not realize I was in a gun free school zone I do have a concealed permit on me and under the law I am legally carrying my gun in the gun free zone.


Under these circumstances the law enforcement officer has 2 choices, arrest me for illegal carrying of a gun or he can accept my explanation and release me. Which is likely to happen and if arrested will the D.A. recognize my right to be in a gun free zone with an exposed gun as long as I have a concealed permit with me.

It is my belief that there would be no provable law broken by being in a gun free zone with an exposed gun as long as you have a concealed permit on you at the same time.

I agree... and further I say no law is broken even if you have a permit, but NOT on your person. In either case, the stop and possible arrest would both be rights violations. In this case the officer would most probably be local and therefore charges would be filed under the STATE law. If the prosecutor proceeds with the prosecution, he makes the local government liable further as NO permit is required to carry a firearm OPENLY in a state gfsz.