Constitutional Carry and Federal Law

[MGW]

I wasn't sure where to post this but this seemed like a good spot.

A question came up on a local forum about constitutional carry and federal law "gun free" zones. The specific example given was near schools. Per federal law you are within the federal law if you are legally able to carry a firearm concealed per your states statute.

This person stated that you would be in violation of the federal law if you didn't have a permit to carry and were carrying under the state constitutional carry statute instead. I don't believe this is correct but I don't have enough background on federal law to prove it.

I have a state permit so I'm not worried about it. I would like to see accurate information provided though. If someone can help me out I would appreciate it.

[MGW]

Anybody?

[joshs]

That is correct, the federal GFSZA only exempts someone with a permit to possess or acquire a firearm in the state where the zone is located. It's a problem for reciprocal permit holders and police officers carrying under LEOSA as well.

[xmanhockey7]

That is correct, the federal GFSZA only exempts someone with a permit to possess or acquire a firearm in the state where the zone is located. It's a problem for reciprocal permit holders and police officers carrying under LEOSA as well.
Correct. Even on duty LEOs can be in violation of the law if they're within the school zone, but not acting in an "official capacity". It's a stupid law that only seems to be enforced when someone has done other illegal things within the school zone. To my knowledge, and I am not a lawyer, this has yet to trip up someone who would otherwise be lawfully carrying.

[RoyGBiv]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

18USC922 /q/2/B/ii/

emphasis added

(2)
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(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
The exemption requires a LICENSE.
But if you get caught, it's likely the King will let you kiss his ring and receive forgiveness.
We have become a country of men, after all.

IANAL. This is not legal advice.

[MGW]

Thanks for the info.

[Kingsfield]

Some additional background, which you may find of interest (or not). The full language of the exception is:

"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;"

In US v. Tait, 202 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2000), the Federal government took the position that Alabama permits did not authorize Alabama residents to carry in a school zone, because, in their view, Alabama was too lenient in checking whether an applicant was permitted to possess a firearm:

"The government first argues that Alabama licenses never qualify for the exception in 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) because Alabama does not require its licensing agents to conduct background checks on firearms license applicants."

See http://openjurist.org/202/f3d/1320/united-states-v-tait

That particular court at one point rejects the argument:

"Alabama is free to set forth its own licensing requirements, and Congress chose to defer to those licensing requirements when it established 'qualified under law' as its criterion for the exception to the Gun-Free School Zone Act. Therefore the government's first argument with respect to § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) is rejected."

A footnote provides some equivocal observations:

"The government argues that Alabama's licensing requirements are so relaxed that they will always fail to qualify their licensees for the § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) exception. The government maintains that Congress envisioned a background check when drafting the exception. This would require states to check for prior felonies before issuing firearms licenses. If the state failed to do so, their licenses would be valid for state purposes, but the licensees would not garner the § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) protections. While the government's argument is persuasive, it misses the point. Tait's civil rights were fully restored by operation of Michigan law; hence, even if Alabama had conducted a background check, Tait would have qualified for the license so long as Alabama allowed former felons to possess firearms. Whether Tait qualified for a license under Alabama laws is discussed later in this opinion. Having determined that Alabama's licensing procedure is not relevant to this appeal, we decline to decide whether, in general, Alabama's licensing procedure qualifies its licensees for § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii) protections."

YMMV.