School Zones

[RImike]

I'm alittle confused regarding the policy of School Zones and fire arms. I live next door to what used to be a school, but isn't anymore, is it still a school? FYI, the building is 20 feet away from my apartment. However I was reading the ATF pamflet regarding school zones and based on the info, I think i'm ok because I am on private property, correct? Here is where i gathered my info http://www.atf.gov/pub/gen_pub/gun_free_school_zone_notice.pdf

 

[JRyan]

I know for certain you don't want to carry to school.

 

[jdubois]

No worries. It likely wouldn't fall under the Federal definition of a school if it is not being actively used. Even if it does, the rules don't apply to any gun on private property, to any gun that is unloaded and in a locked container, and to any gun which you are licensed to possess (which for you means handguns your carrying under a license to carry). As far as RI laws go, you don't hit them until you are on the grounds of the school itself.

 

[Evergreen]

I agree with jdubois. If the building is no longer a school of any kind - if it's just an office building or apartment building now - then my guess is that the law no longer applies. But I'm a teacher, not a lawyer.

 

[doobie]

I've always wated to know what happens if someone is driving or walking near a school and carrying with a license that doesn't meet/exceed the laws of issue (aka NH)..... Does one have to plan a driving route that doesn't let them closer to 1000 ft of the school?

 

[jdubois]

I've always wated to know what happens if someone is driving or walking near a school and carrying with a license that doesn't meet/exceed the laws of issue (aka NH)..... Does one have to plan a driving route that doesn't let them closer to 1000 ft of the school?

How does a NH license not "meet/exceed the laws of issue"? The only restriction on applicable licenses in 922(q)(2) is that "the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license".

Now, if you were open carrying in NH without a license, yes, you'd have to plan a route around the school zone.

 

[Len-2A Training]

How does a NH license not "meet/exceed the laws of issue"? The only restriction on applicable licenses in 922(q)(2) is that "the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license".

That's where the problem is. In NH, the Selectmen in some towns are authorized to issue NH Licenses and therefore the state does not comply with the Fed Law.

 

[jdubois]

That's where the problem is. In NH, the Selectmen in some towns are authorized to issue NH Licenses and therefore the state does not comply with the Fed Law.

Considering the State Police provide the one and only form that is allowed to be used for application for a license, and that form contains questions ascertaining whether the applicant is qualified under law, coupled with the vague wording as to what exactly "verify" entails and that the $10 processing fee goes to the local PD, I think you could make a fine case that NH does, in fact, comply with 922(q)(2).

 

[rcinma]

So the law prohibits carrying a gun in a school zone which would include say, dropping your child off in the parking lot?

Then the linked pamphlet has this wording:

"In the following situations an individual would not be possessing a firearm in violation of 922(q)(A):

1. The individual is licensed by the State or political subdivision to possess the firearm and the license was issued after law enforcement officials verified that the indiviual is qualified to receive the license"


Which sounds a lot like the current MA LTC process.

 

[jdubois]

Which sounds a lot like the current MA LTC process.

Yes, 922(q) is pretty much a non-issue for law abiding folk in MA. You're not allowed to even possess a gun without a license, so your either already up sh*t creek, or you are exempted by (2)(B)(ii). MA does have it's own guns on school grounds laws though.

 

[rcinma]

Yes, 922(q) is pretty much a non-issue for law abiding folk in MA. You're not allowed to even possess a gun without a license, so your either already up sh*t creek, or you are exempted by (2)(B)(ii). MA does have it's own guns on school grounds laws though.

OK, I found the Mass. law and there is no mention of school zone or distance from it just school grounds (although assuming the parking lot of the school is considered school grounds I aswered my own question):

(j) Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, “firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means.

 

[vellnueve]

Yes, it's in chapter 269. In MA for a legal firearms owner, there is no "school zone", just the school grounds itself.

 

[jdubois]

OK, I found the Mass. law and there is no mention of school zone or distance from it just school grounds (although assuming the parking lot of the school is considered school grounds I aswered my own question):

Yes, correct, there is no 'zone' in the MA laws.

 

[doobie]

Considering the State Police provide the one and only form that is allowed to be used for application for a license, and that form contains questions ascertaining whether the applicant is qualified under law, coupled with the vague wording as to what exactly "verify" entails and that the $10 processing fee goes to the local PD, I think you could make a fine case that NH does, in fact, comply with 922(q)(2).

I am aware of someone in a town who applied, paid, and walked out the door with a license (under 5 minutes I was told). The officer who processed it did nothing more than make sure the form was filled out correctly. No call to verify the person.

I thought somewhere previously on the forum it has been said that NH does NOT comply with 922(q)(2).

 

[Realtor MA]

If the parking lot is considered 'school grounds', how do I pick my kid up?

 

[jdubois]

I am aware of someone in a town who applied, paid, and walked out the door with a license (under 5 minutes I was told). The officer who processed it did nothing more than make sure the form was filled out correctly. No call to verify the person.

My argument is that the form itself is the verification. Through the form, the State Police have asked specific questions as to the applicant's suitability under the law, and the applicant has verified they are suitable.

I thought somewhere previously on the forum it has been said that NH does NOT comply with 922(q)(2).

Could be. I could see the argument the other way. But the Federal law is worded too vaguely to know for sure. It doesn't say a criminal background check must be run. It just says the police must be involved in a verification of some kind. Unless there has been some case law on the matter, I'm not convinced either way.

 

[doobie]

My argument is that the form itself is the verification. Through the form, the State Police have asked specific question's as to the applicants suitability under the law, and the applicant has verified they are suitable.

The PDF says, "license is issued after law enforcement verified the individual is qualified to receive the license"

Law enforcement doesn't always verify (the selectman can; and even if issued by the police, they will sometimes assume the person didn't lie); even if a given individual's license was issued by law enforcement the fact that some aren't breaks it for everyone.

 

[jdubois]

The PDF says, "license is issued after law enforcement verified the individual is qualified to receive the license"

Doesn't matter what the PDF says. It only matters what the law says.

Law enforcement doesn't always verify (the selectman can; and even if issued by the police, they will sometimes assume the person didn't lie);

How should Law Enforcement verify? State check? Federal Check? Canvasing the applicant's neighbors and relatives? Interrogating the applicant for hours to see if they'll break? The federal law does not say what level of verification is required. Asking the applicant some basic questions is the first level of verification. That is accomplished by the form provided by the State Police. If the form was optional, or the selectmen or mayor could make up their own form, then there's no question it wouldn't be in compliance. But with the mandate that the form come from the State Police, and the fact that the form asks questions to verify the applicants suitablity, the State Police are indeed performing a verification, and the selectman or mayor is acting as their agent.

 

[doobie]

No testcase yet.... do you want to be one?

From PGNH's faq..

18 USC 922 (q) includes exemptions for private property (i.e., you’re OK if your house is next to a school), for police officers on duty, for school-approved programs, and for unloaded guns in locked containers or locked gun racks. There’s also an exemption for people holding carry licenses, but only if state law 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.” Unfortunately, New Hampshire state law (RSA 159:6) arguably does NOT make the cut, in part because town selectmen and city mayors can issue carry licenses, and they’re not “law enforcement authorities.” But even if your carry license was issued by a police chief, it doesn’t protect you, because our state law doesn’t meet the requirements of the federal law.

This federal “Gun Free School Zones Act” is unpopular, and some people prefer to believe that New Hampshire’s carry licenses provide an exemption, despite the above analysis. Further, nobody in New Hampshire has been arrested or prosecuted on the basis of this federal law. Still, you have to ask yourself if you want to be the test case.

Doesn't matter what the PDF says. It only matters what the law says.



How should Law Enforcement verify? State check? Federal Check? Canvasing the applicant's neighbors and relatives? Interrogating the applicant for hours to see if they'll break? The federal law does not say what level of verification is required. Asking the applicant some basic questions is the first level of verification. That is accomplished by the form provided by the State Police. If the form was optional, or the selectmen or mayor could make up their own form, then there's no question it wouldn't be in compliance. But with the mandate that the form come from the State Police, and the fact that the form asks questions to verify the applicants suitablity, the State Police are indeed performing a verification, and the selectman or mayor is acting as their agent.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If the parking lot is considered 'school grounds', how do I pick my kid up?

By not having the gun "on your person" when doing the pickup. 269-10j stipulates "on one's person" - a constraint not present in other proscriptions in ch 269 (MA courts have held that differences with the same chapter of law are to be considered as having meaning).
Don't count on the average officer to understand that difference though

 

[jdubois]

From PGNH's faq..

Key words there: "arguably does NOT make the cut"

 

[drgrant]

Key words there: "arguably does NOT make the cut"

FWIW I think that a prosecution under GFSZ is improbable if one has a permit.

Not to mention, US v Lopez basically dragon punched the snot out of that law, anyways. The "legal test" for a GFSZ prosecution is a lot greater than it was back then. It would not surprise me at all if there have been zero GFSZ cases brought since US v Lopez.

-Mike

 

[jdubois]

FWIW I think that a prosecution under GFSZ is improbable if one has a permit.

Agreed. The chance of having your concealed firearm discovered, times the chance that local LE even knows about the law, times the chance a federal prosecutor is going to try and prosecute a case against a permit holder, times the chance you would actually be convicted, equals a very, very small chance.

 

[Realtor MA]

By not having the gun "on your person" when doing the pickup. 269-10j stipulates "on one's person" - a constraint not present in other proscriptions in ch 269 (MA courts have held that differences with the same chapter of law are to be considered as having meaning).
Don't count on the average officer to understand that difference though

Thanks for the info.