• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why do we need guns on campus?

davesnothere

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
83
Location
Mesa, Arizona, USA
imported post

Since it's a High School it falls into the Federal "Gun Free Zone" statutes, and therefore the coach qualifies as a "Gun Free Victim."

Another example of the logical fallacy of creating gun free zones. Gun Free Zones don't keep guns out. They just prevent law-abiding citizens from having the ability to protect themselves.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
imported post

davesnothere wrote:
Since it's a High School it falls into the Federal "Gun Free Zone" statutes, and therefore the coach qualifies as a "Gun Free Victim."

Another example of the logical fallacy of creating gun free zones. Gun Free Zones don't keep guns out. They just prevent law-abiding citizens from having the ability to protect themselves.
There are no Federal laws regarding Gun Free School Zones anymore. I think these are left up to the state now and UT is the only one who does not have "gun free zones."
 

davesnothere

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
83
Location
Mesa, Arizona, USA
imported post

You must not have read the whole page.

Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.
Proving that the gun "has moved in...interstate commerce" is as easy as determining if the gun was manufactured outside the State where the offense was committed.

My 1911A1 was made outside Arizona, therefore it has "moved in interstate commerce."
 

thefirststrike

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
133
Location
Moscow, Idaho, USA
imported post

davesnothere wrote:
You must not have read the whole page.

Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.
Proving that the gun "has moved in...interstate commerce" is as easy as determining if the gun was manufactured outside the State where the offense was committed.

My 1911A1 was made outside Arizona, therefore it has "moved in interstate commerce."
I am confused...is it legal to carry in a school zone or not? And if it is, why can state universities and colleges still be given the ability under "administrative rules" to circumvent federal and state Constitutions and effectively deny us our constitutionally protected rights to carry our weapons?

Dave
 

rpyne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
1,074
Location
Provo, Utah, USA
imported post

18 USC 922(q)(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, 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;
(iii) that is--
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
In Utah, this is satisfied by:

UCA 76-10-505.5. Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
(1) A person may not possess any dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun, as those terms are defined in Section 76-10-501, at a place that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on or about school premises as defined in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1).
(2)
(a) Possession of a dangerous weapon on or about school premises is a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Possession of a firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises is a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply if:
(a) the person is authorized to possess a firearm as provided under Section 53-5-704, 53-5-705, 76-10-511, or 76-10-523, or as otherwise authorized by law;

(b) the possession is approved by the responsible school administrator;
(c) the item is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use; or
(d) the possession is:
(i) at the person's place of residence or on the person's property;
(ii) in any vehicle lawfully under the person's control, other than a vehicle owned by the school or used by the school to transport students; or
(iii) at the person's place of business which is not located in the areas described in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iv).
(4) This section does not prohibit prosecution of a more serious weapons offense that may occur on or about school premises.

Edit: Added UCA 76-10-505.5 excerpt
 

davesnothere

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
83
Location
Mesa, Arizona, USA
imported post

Colleges and Universities do not fall under the Gun Free Schools rules from a Federal level.

Only Elementary, Secondary and High Schools.
 

noname762

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
199
Location
Where am I, WA, , USA
imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
+1   We're unarmed... come in and kill us!

It was several months ago I think. Three or four, it could have been 5 attacks on young women at the University of Washington over 2or 3 weeks. Correct me if I am wrong but some scrawny dark haired guy...coulda been mex was trying to assault college gals walking on campus after dark. Campus cops were no help. It just takes one LAC in the wrong place at the right time to put the kabosh on a predator like that. I think the bad guy left town for greener pastures. I don't think he ever got caught. Personally I would have loved it if he had of gotten caught by one of those feminists and got the s*** kicked out of him by a girl.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that whole story. It's a 'gun free zone', so nobody could have been shot there. Sorry to rain on your parade, the media must have got it wrong. Perhaps it was near a gun free zone, and if the zone were a little larger, he'd have been safe, and not shot. Gun free zones keep us safe!
 

The Expert

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
118
Location
Taylor, Michigan, USA
imported post

This is a clear example of the problems with literacy in the nation. Obviously the shooter didn't know it was a Gun Free Zone because he couldn't read the posted signs.

Had he not been given a pass from grade to grade regardless of his inability to read then maybe he would have been able to see the signs and realize that he was prohibited from shooting people there.

When the public school system is fixed, there won't be any more instances of this happening.
 

SecondAmendmentStudents

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
75
Location
, ,
imported post

I spent a week at GMU (Fairfax) at an IHS seminar and CC'ed pretty much the entire time. I didn't feel familiar enough with VA's laws to let anyone know, even during our "Right to Own a Gun" lecture and discussion, but it was still a good experience.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

davesnothere wrote:
You must not have read the whole page.

Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.
Proving that the gun "has moved in...interstate commerce" is as easy as determining if the gun was manufactured outside the State where the offense was committed.

My 1911A1 was made outside Arizona, therefore it has "moved in interstate commerce."
Wouldn't they have to prove you purchased it over state lines?
If you buy it in Mass, although admitting we were once residence there
has it's own stigma, you haven't participated in interstate commerce.
You can travel with it through federal transport laws, and find your
destinations freedom loving state is the place to be and renounce your
kennedy affiliation. Just because a gun is made somewhere else does
not mean it was purchased over state lines. Unless you did a FFL
transfer with it. They need to prove otherwise. Heck the previous owner
brought it from Springfield and sold it to you in a private sale, damn if I can
remember his name now though. Maybe Sanchez or something, was raising
money to flee 1070 or some such I think he said.:lol:
Or you bought it in Mass in the good old days before Regan and Clinton
made criminals out of it's citizens. Or from a nice canadian who had to
get rid of it when the overloards outlawed them. (international not interstate)
Lots of legal ways to have a gun from another state except in NJ, and MD.:banghead:
Interstate transport is not interstate commerce if you do it yourself.:cuss:
 

KansasMustang

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2008
Messages
1,005
Location
Herington, Kansas, USA
imported post

I'm still having a tough time understanding why it is so hard for the Liberal Progressives to understand the part of the 2nd Amendment that clearly states: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That's just plain English even for this day and time. I know they want to make the Constitution a "Living, Breathing document. Hell, it IS,,it lives and breathes to me as clearly as does the Magna Carta, the British Bill of rights, the Declaration of Independence.
I have never understood why the government in it's infinite wisdom ever made such a thing as a "gun free zone"? I've always gone under the old commercial for car insurance "Don't leave home without it". I did get my CCL but only for the times that I figured it would be prudent. Only after great preponderance. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
451
Location
Knob Noster, MO
imported post

KansasMustang wrote:
I have never understood why the government in it's infinite wisdom ever made such a thing as a "gun free zone"?
I'm a firm believer that the government that governs least governs best. We're all adults, and far past the point of needing a babysitter. I think everyone agrees that the 'gun free zone' signs are about as effective as 'keep off the grass'.
 

The Expert

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
118
Location
Taylor, Michigan, USA
imported post

I'm still having a tough time understanding why it is so hard for the Liberal Progressives to understand the part of the 2nd Amendment that clearly states: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
They feel that you are over-simplifying what the 2nd Ammendment is saying. You can see that often those of us who are pro-gun quote the 2ndAmmendment, we tend to shorten it and include the part we like. ("right", "keep", "bear", "not infringed" being the key words)

They do the same thing but focus on the first part. They believe that the emphasis is on the FIRST part of the Ammendment. The part about "a well-regulated" militia.

They interpret the 2nd Amdt as only applying a right to keep a well-regulated Militia. If there is not longer a need for a well regulated militia (because we have a standing army and the original militia having evolved into the national guard) then the power of the 2nd Amd fades into oblivion as far as they are concerned.

No need for a "militia" means that there is no reason for people to have guns. No need for a milita means that your rights to keep and bear arms CAN be infringed.

...and as far as they are concerned, the need for a militia is ancient history. They pretty mutch bundle it up with such archaic concepts as God making the earth in 6 days or a man raising himself from the dead after being crucified. The ingnorant anduninformed who live in fear clinging to their guns and Bibles believe such things.

Only such savages would question anything that they tell you to believe or do. They know better, of course. The world must be reformed in the vision that they have for it. If they have to drag everyone else kicking and screaming to their anticipated Utopia, then so be it.
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

Only problem with the malitia argument, is the government is constantly
squashing the malitia at every turn. Claiming they have no right to exist
if they have guns.

No if it is obsolete then amend the constitution to revoke the 2nd and
have the new one authorize national guard to militarily overthrow a tyranical
government in a military cue.
After all when an organized military overthrows a government it is a cue.
Anyone want to guess how many tyrants allow there military to have the
power to toss them out? Although having 50 malitias that are authorized
to remove a federal tyrant would be nice, Governor Palin could have ordered
the Alaska Guard to march on washigton It would certainly restore States rights.
Maybe add that a malitia cannot hinder another malitia in the execution of its
duties so that states cannot intervene with the federally mandated duties of
each other.

We came within a hair of exercising that right just last christmas, I told the
white house that any attempt to make BHO a king and declare his
word as law will be the last straw. Even used a nice Lincoln analogy
about how he fought for the union, and they don't wont to be on the other
side against it.
I still have not gotten a reply from my representative about other presidents
that declared themselves king as the news claimed has happened previously.
I think the exact phrase I used was "identifying targets of opportunity" in the
question. Been six months now and no answer so it is possible it hasn't
happened before. Would be nice if they at least let me know that much if it hadn't.
I think the last response took almost a year, so we will see, left me scratching
my head why he wrote me it was so long in getting the response last time.

I was not happy with the weight of the constitution falling on my shoulders,
but as a citizen it is our duty to defend it.
If there is a list anywhere I know i'm on it and proud to be so.:celebrate:celebrate
Guess I need to work on a nice big signature.:cool:
 

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
902
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
imported post

In 1776, a governmental militia would have been subservient to the crown, until the US formally started to exist. As such, an organized militia may only exist in the Swiss sense -- armed ordinary citizens, ready to band together and repel an intruder or usurper.
 
Top