Got Attacked By Pitbull - Ohio

[JoeSparky]

And so a LEO stops to talk to you while open carrying a handgun across the street from a school. Has suspicion of you carrying a firearm in a GFSZ. Does he need RAS you don't have a permit/license, or only RAS that you have a firearm in a GFSZ?

Your move.

I actually do this. I suspect it is rather rare, but by no means do I think I am the only one. This was discussed a while back, seems like people came down on two sides of the question, and I didn't come away with anything that convinced me to change my plan in the future. I've had multiple police pass me strong side, 8' away on the street in front of a school. I've had conversations with police a block or two away from the school. Never a mention of a firearm. Granted, I'm in a small town and they probably all know of me, so other's results may vary. IF and that's a big IF, a LEO stops me while OC within 1000 feet of a school and says he suspects me of committing the crime of carrying a firearm in a GFSZ, I will show my CCL. Anywhere else, what crime do you suspect me of? Do as you wish. Part of my reasoning here is that I do not wish to jeopardize my wife's well paying job.

He does not have RAS that the carrier in your senerio has a gun within the confines of the so called federal GFSZ--- he has actual evidence (he actually saw it) but HE don't in anyway have RAS that the carrier does not have a valid permit unless he actually knows you and knows that you either don't have the permit or are not eligible for same. As soon as he says, "I don't know you" or "How do I know that you are not a felon?" you KNOW that he does not have ANY RAS that the carrier does not have a permit!

I have sterile carried on purpose several times INSIDE a local public school (K-6) here in UTAH while visiting my grandkids on "grandparents day" without even seeing a Local or Federal LEO much less having an encounter! UTAH does not mandate the carry of a permit or ID when carrying--- OPENLY or Concealed, only that a permit has been issued to the carrier and it is valid!

 

[OC for ME]

What of those states that do not require a permit to carry OC or CC?

 

[utbagpiper]

And so a LEO stops to talk to you while open carrying a handgun across the street from a school. Has suspicion of you carrying a firearm in a GFSZ. Does he need RAS you don't have a permit/license, or only RAS that you have a firearm in a GFSZ?

He does not have RAS that the carrier in your senerio has a gun within the confines of the so called federal GFSZ--- he has actual evidence (he actually saw it) but HE don't in anyway have RAS that the carrier does not have a valid permit unless he actually knows you and knows that you either don't have the permit or are not eligible for same. As soon as he says, "I don't know you" or "How do I know that you are not a felon?" you KNOW that he does not have ANY RAS that the carrier does not have a permit!

I'm just wondering out loud here if the way the federal GFSZ law is written makes a difference.

For sake of intellectual/legal discussion, I'm going to ignore how offensive the federal GFSZ law is to our 2nd amd and just go with the SCOTUS ruling that it is constitutional.

The law is at 18 USC 921 q 2 which says in simple terms in paragraph A that it is unlawful to possess a firearm in a school zone.

Paragraph B ii then says that paragraph A doesn't apply to possession of a gun by a person with a permit to carry.

Does this create a different situation regarding RAS than if the law were written to read "it is illegal for those without a permit to carry a gun in a school zone"?

As written, it is illegal to possess a gun in a school zone unless you have a permit (or qualify for one of the other exceptions). If the officer knows you have a gun in a school zone, does he require RAS that you don't meet one of the exceptions? Or is he allowed to check to make sure you meet one of the exceptions as otherwise you are clearly violating the law?

I don't claim to know how courts might rule on this. Maybe the two different, possible wordings I've pointed out are entirely, functionally equivalent. Or maybe, the existing wording is more like an affirmative defense than if things were worded the other way. I don't know.

I do point out that personal experience is not a good gauge of what the law actually is. Local cops (and even federal agents) often ignore violations of federal law, or they know a person well enough to know he has a permit, or know the community well enough to figure anyone blatantly OCing either is legal, or doesn't need to be hassled, or that is not my agency's charter, or any of a half dozen other reasons.

I'm curious about how a judge (or 5 judges) are likely to rule if the question of RAS on a permit came before them in the case of someone OCing in a federal GFSZ.

Charles

 

[solus]

(4)Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

yes mate, already aware UTAH is special w/76.10.505

ipse

 

[JoeSparky]

As my friend UTBAGPIPER has said in his posting above....

The law is at 18 USC 921 q 2 which says in simple terms in paragraph A that it is unlawful to possess a firearm in a school zone.

Paragraph B ii then says that paragraph A doesn't apply to possession of a gun by a person with a permit to carry.

I read this as "this is the law for many/most" but IF one has a permit issued by the state in which the school is located "it is NOT unlawful"

Nothing about an 'affirmative defense' just here is the law for some but it don't exist for others

Leads me to ask about ALL being equal under the law!

and another quote from Charles....

[ Local cops (and even federal agents) often ignore violations of federal law, or they know a person well enough to know he has a permit, or know the community well enough to figure anyone blatantly OCing either is legal, or doesn't need to be hassled, or that is not my agency's charter, or any of a half dozen other reasons./QUOTE]

IF the LEO knows you well enough to KNOW that you have a permit just how would he also have RAS that you DIDN'T?

As has been suggest by Charles I concur and am thankful that this has NOT been a huge issue per my experience or even internet forum reports at least here in UTAH.

 

[solus]

clears up your misrepresentation(s) mate...

which i notice you never refute my posts but try to negate by posting funny pictures of a mythical character in their garment!

again w/o a single bell rung...

the chicken has again followed the rooster...
ipse

 

[OC for ME]

Was there not a case/ruling in Florida on this very issue? CC, arrested, no RAS for the cop to detain due only the presence of a firearm. I could be reckoning incorrectly.

 

[Wstar425]

I'm just wondering out loud here if the way the federal GFSZ law is written makes a difference.

For sake of intellectual/legal discussion, I'm going to ignore how offensive the federal GFSZ law is to our 2nd amd and just go with the SCOTUS ruling that it is constitutional.

The law is at 18 USC 921 q 2 which says in simple terms in paragraph A that it is unlawful to possess a firearm in a school zone.

Paragraph B ii then says that paragraph A doesn't apply to possession of a gun by a person with a permit to carry.

Does this create a different situation regarding RAS than if the law were written to read "it is illegal for those without a permit to carry a gun in a school zone"?

As written, it is illegal to possess a gun in a school zone unless you have a permit (or qualify for one of the other exceptions). If the officer knows you have a gun in a school zone, does he require RAS that you don't meet one of the exceptions? Or is he allowed to check to make sure you meet one of the exceptions as otherwise you are clearly violating the law?

I don't claim to know how courts might rule on this. Maybe the two different, possible wordings I've pointed out are entirely, functionally equivalent. Or maybe, the existing wording is more like an affirmative defense than if things were worded the other way. I don't know.

I do point out that personal experience is not a good gauge of what the law actually is. Local cops (and even federal agents) often ignore violations of federal law, or they know a person well enough to know he has a permit, or know the community well enough to figure anyone blatantly OCing either is legal, or doesn't need to be hassled, or that is not my agency's charter, or any of a half dozen other reasons.

I'm curious about how a judge (or 5 judges) are likely to rule if the question of RAS on a permit came before them in the case of someone OCing in a federal GFSZ.

Charles

I don't know the answer as to which is correct, and in my opinion if is a gray enough area that I suspect others, including LEO and maybe even judges might differ.

I'm only saying if LE asks to see my CCL while in front of the school OC (or within 1000 ft) , I will show it, BUT that is the ONLY place. As mentioned, live in a small town where I suspect my actions might have different results than a large city. This is not a hill I care to die on, neither arguing over this discussion, nor refusing to show CCL. Actually, I have never been asked to show my CCL to anyone of authority. I don't know whether the local police might have researched me on their own to see if I actually have a CCL or not, or if they even can do that. I would suspect they can.

I just talked to the officer that will be the new K-9 dude in the church parking lot across from his house, about 2 blocks from a school. 20 minutes, no mention of firearm. He's getting a Malinois.

 

[Wstar425]

He does not have RAS that the carrier in your senerio has a gun within the confines of the so called federal GFSZ--- he has actual evidence (he actually saw it) but HE don't in anyway have RAS that the carrier does not have a valid permit unless he actually knows you and knows that you either don't have the permit or are not eligible for same. As soon as he says, "I don't know you" or "How do I know that you are not a felon?" you KNOW that he does not have ANY RAS that the carrier does not have a permit!

I have sterile carried on purpose several times INSIDE a local public school (K-6) here in UTAH while visiting my grandkids on "grandparents day" without even seeing a Local or Federal LEO much less having an encounter! UTAH does not mandate the carry of a permit or ID when carrying--- OPENLY or Concealed, only that a permit has been issued to the carrier and it is valid!

So, I come home one day, a police car is sitting here in front of my house. Discover I've locked myself out with no key. Break a small window to access door knob. Police watch me.

Does he now not have RAS of me breaking and entering, because he has actual evidence (he saw me) since he watched and saw me. Does he have no RAS to suspect me of B&E and now ask me for ID, because he doesn't NOT know in fact that I don't live here?

Granted, not an exact correlation, but.......

If the state issued CCL/Permit is the thing that makes one legal within 1000 feet of a school, carrying would seem to be a wise idea to me. Again, this has never happened to me, but I like to have thought things through before hand as much as possible.

 

[color of law]

So, I come home one day, a police car in sitting here in front of my house. Discover I've locked myself out with no key. Break a small window to access door knob. Police watch me.

Does he now not have RAS of me breaking and entering, because he has actual evidence (he saw me) since he watched and saw me. Does he have no RAS to suspect me of B&E and now ask me for ID, because he doesn't NOT know in fact that I don't live here?

Yes, under Terry.

 

[solus]

roflmao @ the supposedly brilliant, middle aged MA trained EE & self proclaimed & professed state gun advocate ~ tho w/no currect website activity whatsoever, making a complete clown of himself by posting fotos and calling another member names while trying to improve his own creds.

i find it absolutely fabulous~sad actually, but watching his downward spiral is truly fascinating to observe...

ipse

 

[utbagpiper]

roflmao @ the supposedly brilliant, middle aged MA trained EE & self proclaimed & professed state gun advocate ~ tho w/no currect website activity whatsoever, making a complete clown of himself by posting fotos and calling another member names while trying to improve his own creds.

i find it absolutely fabulous~sad actually, but watching his downward spiral is truly fascinating to observe...

What is fascinating to observe is the way the house pet and self-professed intellectual is allowed to engage in not so subtle threats of sexual assault or dominance (roosters and hens) while displaying the kind of small minded bigotry befitting the sheet clad Klan members of old, while feigning indignation if 10% of what he dishes out comes back to him in a most mild form.

Everything I've written that might hurt your snowflake-like feelings was only and always in response to your addressing me in a way I've repeatedly and politely asked you not to. When you rise to the minimum civility of not addressing me as "mate" or making other insults, you get a civilized, if blunt response. Even a dog would have noticed the Pavlovian pattern by now. Have you really missed it?

What the crap is your problem rooster? Do you hate all men of faith? Mormons in particular? Or have I actually done something to raise your ire? Are you still butt sore over being called out over your defense of violent car jackers?

Being the class pet, you can obviously do as you like, abusing others with impunity. The question is why.

 

[JoeSparky]

So, I come home one day, a police car is sitting here in front of my house. Discover I've locked myself out with no key. Break a small window to access door knob. Police watch me.

Does he now not have RAS of me breaking and entering, because he has actual evidence (he saw me) since he watched and saw me. Does he have no RAS to suspect me of B&E and now ask me for ID, because he doesn't NOT know in fact that I don't live here?

Granted, not an exact correlation, but.......

If the state issued CCL/Permit is the thing that makes one legal within 1000 feet of a school, carrying would seem to be a wise idea to me. Again, this has never happened to me, but I like to have thought things through before hand as much as possible.

In your hypothetical--- he did see you "breaking in" and can swear and testify to the same BUT he only has RAS that you were not an authorized occupant of that location. Breaking and entering would ONLY be unlawful IF you were not authorized to be at or in that location.

I think it fits real well as an analogy to the federal GFSZ and the open carrier who has been issued a permit to carry.

 

[Wstar425]

In your hypothetical--- he did see you "breaking in" and can swear and testify to the same BUT he only has RAS that you were not an authorized occupant of that location. Breaking and entering would ONLY be unlawful IF you were not authorized to be at or in that location.

I think it fits real well as an analogy to the federal GFSZ and the open carrier who has been issued a permit to carry.

Ok, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but trying to understand.

So, why couldn't the LEO walk up to your front door, say I saw you break the window, open the door, walk inside, and now I need to see some ID that proves you actually live here? Wouldn't he have some reasonable suspicion that this might not be your house?

I keep getting hung up on the gun inside the 1000 foot line. Under GFSZ they are all illegal unless, or is it except? if you have a permit. In Wisconsin we have no permit open carry, so anywhere else you are not committing any crime. Within 1000 feet, you "might" be?

I guess I'm saying, I suspect you might not be legal, prove it by showing your CCL/ permit.

You (Terry) is saying what suspicion do you have to think I DON'T have a permit?

On the right track here? I know I shot all over the place on this, do the best you can please!

It's too bad every post on this site has to get junked up with personal vendettas, I appreciate the civil discussion.

 

[utbagpiper]

I don't know the answer as to which is correct, and in my opinion if is a gray enough area that I suspect others, including LEO and maybe even judges might differ.

I'm only saying if LE asks to see my CCL while in front of the school OC (or within 1000 ft) , I will show it, BUT that is the ONLY place. As mentioned, live in a small town where I suspect my actions might have different results than a large city. This is not a hill I care to die on, neither arguing over this discussion, nor refusing to show CCL. Actually, I have never been asked to show my CCL to anyone of authority. I don't know whether the local police might have researched me on their own to see if I actually have a CCL or not, or if they even can do that. I would suspect they can.

I just talked to the officer that will be the new K-9 dude in the church parking lot across from his house, about 2 blocks from a school. 20 minutes, no mention of firearm. He's getting a Malinois.

I'm guessing that regardless of how the law were worded, with the general prohibition on guns in school zones and a limited number of exceptions, the vast majority of judges would rule that schools are one of those "sensitive areas" where there is a lower threshold required for an officer to make a stop to check the legality of the firearm.

For me, personally, I've never actually been asked for my permit, but had it preemptively available the one time a couple of officers approached me while I was OCing (not in a school zone). After politely, but firmly declining to hide my firearm they left. I had the permit out and ready when their sergeant approached me and said, "I know you've got a permit. Put it away and come chat for second."

He sincerely believed there was a requirement to conceal if carrying pursuant to a permit.

I offered to go through the law with him so we went over to the RV that serves as a police mobile command post at major events in our city. A couple of his superiors were there and the three of us had a lovely chat as I walked them through the code on their laptop. They pretty much agreed I was right and maybe some training for their officers might be appropriate. I went back out to enjoy the rest of the event, having never been disarmed.

I considered it time very well spent and have never been approached by our city's police officers while OCing at similar events since. The wife wasn't entirely happy that I had spent an hour in a nice air conditioned RV talking guns while she had charge of the kids alone in the summer heat. But that is a bit off topic.

I can imagine times when I'd be less accommodating. But they simply haven't materialized for me.

I'm enjoying the exchange between you and JoeSparky.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

Of course a cop could follow you into your own home, given the B&E scenario. SCOTUS has decreed as much. I do not disagree with the premise if the individual cop is smart about his approach. He only knows what he sees. Unfortunate that the cop and you happen to hit the lottery at the same exact moment.

Otherwise, the cop better be able to articulate exigent circumstances after I close the door to my own house...in front of a judge that is.

 

[JoeSparky]

Ok, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but trying to understand.

So, why couldn't the LEO walk up to your front door, say I saw you break the window, open the door, walk inside, and now I need to see some ID that proves you actually live here? Wouldn't he have some reasonable suspicion that this might not be your house?

I keep getting hung up on the gun inside the 1000 foot line. Under GFSZ they are all illegal unless, or is it except? if you have a permit. In Wisconsin we have no permit open carry, so anywhere else you are not committing any crime. Within 1000 feet, you "might" be?

I guess I'm saying, I suspect you might not be legal, prove it by showing your CCL/ permit.

You (Terry) is saying what suspicion do you have to think I DON'T have a permit?

On the right track here? I know I shot all over the place on this, do the best you can please!

It's too bad every post on this site has to get junked up with personal vendettas, I appreciate the civil discussion.

IF I was seen by an officer breaking a window to gain access to a house I do believe he would have RAS that I may not be a lawful resident or authorized occupant---enough to at least ID me. And as a home owner I think I'd be upset to hear that a LEO saw this and DIDN'T at least attempt to identify the 'suspect.'

As to the gfsz law.... it doesn't say 'illegal' unless or except. It says "does not apply if one has a permit" so with a permit issued to me by the state in which the school is located the is no law against my carrying a firearm in that location. ( We may be to the level of splitting hairs here ). My understanding of the law is it is incumbent upon the LEO to have RAS that I have violated, am presently violating, or am about to violate a law before said LEO can lawfully compel me to engage in an encounter against my will. If he doesn't know me from Adam, Harry, or Frank HOW can he has RAS that I don't have a permit or that I am a felon or anything else about me or my history no matter where I am in public.

Calm Rational Discussion is most welcome and unfortunately as you've noted at times sorely lacking!

 

[Wstar425]

IF I was seen by an officer breaking a window to gain access to a house I do believe he would have RAS that I may not be a lawful resident or authorized occupant---enough to at least ID me. And as a home owner I think I'd be upset to hear that a LEO saw this and DIDN'T at least attempt to identify the 'suspect.'

As to the gfsz law.... it doesn't say 'illegal' unless or except. It says "does not apply if one has a permit" so with a permit issued to me by the state in which the school is located the is no law against my carrying a firearm in that location. ( We may be to the level of splitting hairs here ). My understanding of the law is it is incumbent upon the LEO to have RAS that I have violated, am presently violating, or am about to violate a law before said LEO can lawfully compel me to engage in an encounter against my will. If he doesn't know me from Adam, Harry, or Frank HOW can he has RAS that I don't have a permit or that I am a felon or anything else about me or my history no matter where I am in public.

Calm Rational Discussion is most welcome and unfortunately as you've noted at times sorely lacking!

Thanks for that explanation, you may very well be correct. I will have to go back and reread the exact wording. I do understand what you're saying. I have to reread and ponder on this a bit.

 

[OC for ME]

Affirmative defense and "does not apply" to are the same exact thing to the street cop. Only a judge will decide the definition of "does not apply."

 

[JoeSparky]

Affirmative defense and "does not apply" to are the same exact thing to the street cop. Only a judge will decide the definition of "does not apply."

How about "affirmative defense" means once I've been arrested and charged I have to claim this defense against prosecution in court--- but I've already been arrested ect. Where as "does not apply" means I didn't violate the law cuz there is no law against so in a perfect world I wouldn't even be arrested or charged.