Conflicting Information - Real Deal About LA School "Zones"

[georg jetson]

I disagree with the bold part and here's why:

A local LEO has the authority to detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that a Federal law has been broken until such person can be turned over to the Federal LEO that will then perform the custodial arrest.

Good point.

The Federal Gun Free School Zone law makes it illegal to carry the gun within 1000' of the school. The EXCEPTION to that law is if the person is licensed by the state the school zone is in. So, the officer, upon seeing the gun in the Federally defined GFSZ would have reasonable suspicion to indicate the subject was violating the Federal law until such time as the person could show to the officer the evidence that they were exempt from such law.

Now, if the Federal law was worded differently, so that the actual prohibition itself said that it was only illegal to carry the gun in the GFSZ without being licensed, THEN the officer would only have RAS for the stop IF they had RAS to believe that the person did not possess a license, for example they recognized the person as a known convicted felon.

I'm gonna continue to disagree with this unless you have some evidence in support. As of now I can't show anything to support my disagreement. Still looking...

You did prompt me to start doing some research on existing fed gfsz case law and it looks like I have a LOT of reading to do. We've gotta get rid of this law one way or another.

It also looks like somebody got a promotion NavyLCDR...

 

[georg jetson]

Yes, I did get promoted, thank you!

We need to get rid of the entire abuse of the interstate commerce clause. The purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to allow the Federal government to regulate the actual movement of items in interstate commerce. Once the item arrives at it's destination, regulation of that item should be by the destination state only. This whole B.S. concept of "the item moved in interstate commerce at one time so the Federal government can regulate it" means that in modern times the Federal government can regulate anything they want to.

There is even a case of a farmer who grew too much wheat (in violation of federal regulation of the amount of wheat a farmer could grow) for his own consumption on his own farm. The Federal government won their case against him in court because they said that since he grew his own wheat and was using it himself, then he was not buying wheat from the "national" market, and that affected interstate commerce, so, therefore his actions of growing his own wheat for his own conspumtion on his own farm was subject to the Federal government telling him how much he could raise.

Yes sir... the case is 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
WICKARD, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.
v.
FILBURN.
Found here:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...434685&q=Wickard+v.+Filburn&hl=en&as_sdt=2,19

It is a lesson as to how the problems for OCers are systemic and solutions require a broader knowledge of the law than what would first appear.

 

[barf]

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.

Maybe the LEO has another choice. He could cite you for a violation of RS 40:1382 §1382, negligent carrying of a concealed handgun.

A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed."

If you are openly carrying a handgun and present a concealed permit, is it a stretch to think they could make a case that a member of the public or the LEO himself had a "reasonable apprehension" that your openly carried handgun was being brandished or was about to be discharged or used in a crime? IMHO, this is not a stretch.

The open carrier without a concealed permit need not worry about this statute.

 

[barf]

Your conclusion, "The open carrier without a concealed permit need not worry about this statute" makes no sense at all considering the statute itself that you posted states, "whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun."

If one takes the time to read this thread or just the applicable post this was in reply to, the conclusion may make sense.

 

[barf]

I suppose you are correct. The open carrier without a concealed weapons permit would not have to worry about a violation of RS 40:1382 §1382 because the police officer could simply hold the suspect for a LEO with Federal jurisdiction to show up and cite them with violating 18 USC 922 (q). Other than that your statement still makes no sense. Why would the person with a concealed carry permit be in any more violation of RS 40:1382 §1382 than the person without a concealed carry permit?

A concealed carry permit in Louisiana in no way obligates a person to carry a gun concealed or prohibits their choice to carry a gun openly.

In the context of the question being posed (open carrying in a school zone, stopped by LEO, presented CHP to LEO), depending on the circumstances the person with the CHP could be in violation of RS 40:1382 §1382 for the mere fact that they have a CHP and are not concealing.

If it's your OPINION that "a concealed carry permit in Louisiana in no way obligates a person to carry a gun concealed or prohibits their choice to carry a gun openly.", you should make that clear. If you're going to make that STATEMENT, I ask that you cite your reference.

 

[barf]

That's not the way the American legal system works. It's incumbent upon you to provide a statute that makes it illegal. I've already shown the error of your comment in that the statute that you quoted yourself states that the possession of a concealed weapons permit is immaterial.

This isn't the American legal system, it's an internet forum. Cite the source for you statement if you wish to back it up. If not, it won't be taken seriously.

You've proven nothing other than you have a lot of time on your hands to write generalized, unspecific replies.

 

[georg jetson]

Maybe the LEO has another choice. He could cite you for a violation of RS 40:1382 §1382, negligent carrying of a concealed handgun.

A. Negligent carrying of a concealed handgun is the intentional or criminally negligent carrying by any person, whether or not authorized or licensed to carry or possess a concealed handgun, under the following circumstances:

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed."

If you are openly carrying a handgun and present a concealed permit, is it a stretch to think they could make a case that a member of the public or the LEO himself had a "reasonable apprehension" that your openly carried handgun was being brandished or was about to be discharged or used in a crime? IMHO, this is not a stretch.

The open carrier without a concealed permit need not worry about this statute.

State V Fluker has already held that a holstered sidearm is NOT, in itself, reasonable suspicion that a crime has, is or may be committed. Having a permit(to conceal) or not does NOT change this.

However, if you have a sidearm, are wearing a mask and lurking in the shadows, then you may be in for a question or two.

 

[georg jetson]

This isn't the American legal system, it's an internet forum. Cite the source for you statement if you wish to back it up. If not, it won't be taken seriously.

You've proven nothing other than you have a lot of time on your hands to write generalized, unspecific replies.

Dude... you're missing the boat here... It may be a forum, but you're discussing the AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM.

However, if you must... There is NO LAW that says "A concealed carry permit in Louisiana... ..obligates a person to carry a gun concealed or prohibits their choice to carry a gun openly." How does one PROVE that NO law exists? If you're saying there is... then lets see it.

 

[estcrh]

The open carrier without a concealed permit need not worry about this statute.

Since we are talking about carrying a gun in a school zone.....The open carrier without a permit would be immediately arrested for a Federal crime.

(1) When it is foreseeable that the handgun may discharge, or when others are placed in reasonable apprehension that the handgun may discharge.

(2) When the handgun is being carried, brandished, or displayed under circumstances that create a reasonable apprehension on the part of members of the public or a law enforcement official that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed."

Any law enforcement official who would arrest someone who has a gun in a holster peacefully walking down a street and does not present any appearance of being intoxicated or being deranged etc will be giving the arrestee a very good civil rights case indeed. Just ask MARK about that. Quite a few people (and law enforcement officials) have found this out as well.

Marks case.
http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/i-dont-care-what-laws-or-supreme-court.html

Many other examples.
http://conservativeculture.com/index.php/2010/04/open-carry-arrest-in-his-own-yard-wins-case/

http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-a...illegal-open-carry-arrest?fb_comment=33073101

http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/open-carry-false-arrest-costs-san-diego-35-000-part-1

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/101340644.html

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/lo...cle_25295ce2-2acb-11df-bd14-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[estcrh]

There is NO LAW that says "A concealed carry permit in Louisiana... ..obligates a person to carry a gun concealed or prohibits their choice to carry a gun openly." How does one PROVE that NO law exists? If you're saying there is... then lets see it.

This is what I have been led to believe not only by reading the current regulations but also by discussing this very issue over 2 years ago with the New Orleans D.A.s office when I was disputing whether I could openly carry a gun in the French Quarter with the former (currently suspended) head of the 8th district police.

The D.A.s office agreed with me that I did have the right to open carry where it was not prohibited. In my discussion on the lack of knowledge the local police had about the open carry laws with one city attorney, he recommended having a concealed carry permit while open carrying to avoid any chance of being charged with a crime as an concealed carry permit in La. covered any kind of carry as long as you had your permit on you, even if a law enforcement officer did not recognize open carry as being legal.

As someone who has had several La. law enforcement officers tell me that open carry was not legal in New Orleans I want to be as prepared as possible when I do leave my house with a gun. No one who carries a gun on them be it openly or concealed can say for certain that they will not eventually end up in some kind of situation were some knowledge of the current regulations could keep a situation from getting out of hand.

 

[turbodog]

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

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

Come-on Georg, I said:

Originally Posted by turbodog
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.

If you're gonna claim you have a right to be there armed cuz you have a permit, you better have the permit on you when the ask for it. Same as anyplace else you might be carrying concealed. If you are armed and concealing it you gotta have your permit with you! Anyone who has a permit knows this.

 

[turbodog]

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'm skirting nothing. You want to play dense and act like you don't know what "in accordance" means, fine, keep at it brother, but don't accuse me of dodging your questions. I'm giving you an answer, you just don't want to hear it.

 

[turbodog]

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.

Good, finally getting to brass tacks here. My argument is this: (and I'm just talking about permit holders here, not OCing, OK?) If you are claiming that you are LEGAL to possess a handgun ON YOUR PERSON in a Federal GFSZ by right of HAVING A STATE PERMIT (are ya''ll with me so far?) then you MUST have said state permit also ON YOUR PERSON at the time. (got that? Claim the exemption, gotta have proof. No proof = arrest)

Now for State GFSZ: State law now gives La. CHP holders the right to bear arms in a (OK Georg, we'll call it a State GFSZ for your sake) BUT! The law makes a point of stating the gun must be carried "in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1 or R.S. 40:1379.3.". Which means.....ya gotta carry concealed. Now, does one ordinarily have to carry concealed when one has a CHP? NO! There is no requirement under ordinary circumstances that says you MUST carry concealed if you have a permit. Georg, I have a permit and you do too unless I'm mistaken. We both OC and CC don't we? So people, don't think I'm ignorant about this please.

The difference between ordinary running about town and entering a (State) GFSZ is this: "the gun must be carried in accordance with a CONCEALED handgun permit". In other words, to claim the exemption, it must be concealed.
YES YES YES I KNOW we don't HAVE to conceal if we have a permit! YOU know we don't have to conceal if we have a permit! Did the legislators who wrote the State's GFSZ law know this? Well, maybe not. Hence the "in accordance" bit.

 

[estcrh]

The difference between ordinary running about town and entering a (State) GFSZ is this: "the gun must be carried in accordance with a CONCEALED handgun permit". In other words, to claim the exemption, it must be concealed.
.

"In other words, to claim the exemption, it must be concealed"

Ok just show us the part of the regulation which specifically states that in order to be covered by a concealed permit in a gun free school zone you actually have to have your gun concealed....I am willing to bet that you can not show any wording in the entire concealed regulations which specify what is and is not "concealed". Nothing which spells out how much of your gun has to be covered up etc, nothing which determines when you are actually open carrying and when you are concealed carrying. Its easy, just cut and paste the part that proves your point. I have no problem admitting that I am wrong if you can prove it.

 

[georg jetson]

Good, finally getting to brass tacks here. My argument is this: (and I'm just talking about permit holders here, not OCing, OK?) If you are claiming that you are LEGAL to possess a handgun ON YOUR PERSON in a Federal GFSZ by right of HAVING A STATE PERMIT (are ya''ll with me so far?) then you MUST have said state permit also ON YOUR PERSON at the time. (got that? Claim the exemption, gotta have proof. No proof = arrest)

NO you don't in order to satisfy Fed law. Of course if you're NOT OCing, but ccing, then the state requires you to have the permit on your person... so this is a moot point.

Now for State GFSZ: State law now gives La. CHP holders the right to bear arms in a (OK Georg, we'll call it a State GFSZ for your sake) BUT! The law makes a point of stating the gun must be carried "in accordance with a concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to R.S. 40:1379.1 or R.S. 40:1379.3.". Which means.....ya gotta carry concealed. Now, does one ordinarily have to carry concealed when one has a CHP? NO! There is no requirement under ordinary circumstances that says you MUST carry concealed if you have a permit. Georg, I have a permit and you do too unless I'm mistaken. We both OC and CC don't we? So people, don't think I'm ignorant about this please.

Tdog... as has been shown, there is NOTHING in title 40 that requires that the handgun be concealed. One can be in accordance with all requirements in title 40 and carry openly. You can't show us the law that states "concealment" is a requirement because it's not there... AND the REASON it's NOT there is because open carry CANNOT be regulated. There is NO REQUIREMENT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES that one must carry concealed. If I am wrong then show me... show me how carrying openly is NOT in accordance with title 40.

I don't think your ignorant Tdog... just a bit confused, and rightfully so. This crap is more complicated than it needs to be. I don't have a cc permit. I refuse to get one... that's why I'm so interested in getting the fed gfsz law repealed.

The difference between ordinary running about town and entering a (State) GFSZ is this: "the gun must be carried in accordance with a CONCEALED handgun permit". In other words, to claim the exemption, it must be concealed.
YES YES YES I KNOW we don't HAVE to conceal if we have a permit! YOU know we don't have to conceal if we have a permit! Did the legislators who wrote the State's GFSZ law know this? Well, maybe not. Hence the "in accordance" bit.

Again, show where title 40 REQUIRES concealment. It's that simple Tdog.