It appears to me that in most urban and suburban areas of this country, this 1000 feet gun-free radius around all K-12, public and private, would effectively make Constitutional carry very impractical, if not impossible.

I once saw a map of a typical suburban area with these 1000 ft circles around all the schools in the area, it covered the whole damn city.

You're right. Almost has to be intentional on the part of the Feds, doesn't it?

In Arizona you can CCW within 1000 feet as long as you have a permit.

https://arizona.concealedcarry...cealed-carry-permit/

The problem is that is is ONLY legal to carry in the 1,000 foot zone if you have a permit from the state in which you are currently moving. Another state's license isn't good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Act_of_1990#Carrying

There could possibly be a conflict with the laws of transit from one area you're legal to another you're legal, but there might be a lot of pain involved if stopped by law enforcement.

I have ask many times over the last 15+ years if anyone could show me a case where someone was charged with JUST this federal violation. Every instance they could find the person was charged with other crimes when charged with breaking the 1000 foot rule. This law is an add on charge the same as selling drugs within 1000 foot of a school. You have to be selling drugs and be arrested for selling drugs first to be charged with selling them within 1000 foot a school. Again I ask can anyone find a case where this was the only charge?

Gary is right, much the same as seatbelt laws. The police set up a drunk driver screening then tack on the lack of seat belt as an additional charge. Very rarely is anyone cited singularly for lack of a belt alone.


BTW, we may never know, but if you are driving past a school armed - hypothetical situation, of course - then are you transporting a firearm with it's exclusion, or violating the law?

Of the 16 million new gun owners in the last two years, some are saying the majority are women. Which leads to the news report of two moms getting into a brandishing exercise while cutting each other off in the student drop off. Suburban KC MO IIRC.

There's a case with some enforcement if the police followed thru as promised.

quote:

Originally posted by Gary Slider:
I have ask many times over the last 15+ years if anyone could show me a case where someone was charged with JUST this federal violation. Every instance they could find the person was charged with other crimes when charged with breaking the 1000 foot rule. This law is an add on charge the same as selling drugs within 1000 foot of a school. You have to be selling drugs and be arrested for selling drugs first to be charged with selling them within 1000 foot a school. Again I ask can anyone find a case where this was the only charge?

I think it was within 15 years and while open carry of unloaded guns were allowed in California. Someone was arrested while inside a laundromat because the laundromat was inside a school zone.

I tried googling and even when to CalGuns where I saw the discussions but couldn't find actual references.

ETA:

Found the Calguns thread. In the "attached files" section in the first post is the court opinion.

On page two of the court opinion, the facts of the case are stated as follows:
15 Alhambia Police Department Corporal Michael Montano testified that on
16 November 6, 2008, at approximately 3:00 p.m., he responded to a radio call regarding a
17 suspicious man carrying a gun in a holster while sitting in front of a laundromat. When
18 he arrived at the location, Montano, along with Corporal Fernandez, appioached
19 appellant and another individual sitting on a bench outside the landromat. Appellant
20 matched the description of the suspicious individual.
21 Montano immediately noticed appellant was carrying a firearm in a holster
22 attached to the right side of his belt, with a magazine pouch on his left side. Appellant
23 stated he was carrying the gun for personal pi’otection, and that he was exercising his
24 constitutional right to cans the gun because it was in plain sight and unloaded.
25 ill
26
1 After investigating for approximately 25 minutes, the officers returned the firearm to
2 appellant and released him without issuing a citation.
3 Later that day, Montano returned to the location of the incident, and used a
4 roll-a-meter to measure the distance between the school and the location where appellant
s possessed the firearm. The distance was 519 feet. Appellant’s home was approximately
6 one and one-half miles from the laundromat, and the school was “on the other side of
7 Mission Road and Front Street from the laundromat(.]” Montano also testified that there
8 were multiple routes by which one could reach the laundromat parking lot without
9 passing by the elementary school, and that there were no school signs posted on the street
10 directly adjacent to the landromat.
1 i Wilfredo Ruiz, a detective with the Alhambra Police Department, testified that
12 there were at least three signs posted in the area that indicated a school was nearby.
13 Dr. Laurel Bear, the Director of Student Services for the Alhambra Unified School
14 District, testified that she was the designated official who handled requests to carry
15 firearms on or near all campuses within the school district. Dr. Bear did not give
16 appellant permission to carry a firearm within the school zone, nor did appellant apply
17 for a permit to do so.

The judgement of guilty was affirmed on appeals.

Looks to me like it was a state law that convicted this gentleman not the Federal Law. I am not sure what CA law was when open carry was legal. If he was charged with a federal crime he would have been tried in a federal court.