CDZ Should carrying a legally owned gun into a gun free zone be a felony?

[2aguy]

Since the Constitution protects the Right to carry guns for self defense......is it right to destroy the life of a law abiding person who carries a legally owned and carried gun into a gun free zone? This comes up as Ohio and other states want to reform their gun free zone laws...so that a law abiding gun owner, who mistakenly brings their lawfully carried sidearm onto school grounds as they go about the normal business of dropping off and picking up their children, yet forget to take off their guns.........so they won't become convicted felons ...and have their lives destroyed even though they have committed no crime with the gun, and didn't even draw the gun from the holster.....they just carried it with them...as the Constitution allows.....

Here are some thoughts on this...


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/09/glenn-reynolds-gun-control-enforcement-takes-human-toll-column/75414186/

ottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies. Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

 

[miketx]

Of course it should not be. The problem is we've had decades of people being asleep and letting the government do whatever it wanted. Now, we are slowly climbing back up the slope.

 

[Iceweasel]

State laws should be up to the states, I don't like the feds meddling. I can understand school restrictions on firearms and will respect them. I'd rather they didn't pick a fight that will surely be unpopular while handing lots of ammo to the left.

 

[2aguy]

State laws should be up to the states, I don't like the feds meddling. I can understand school restrictions on firearms and will respect them. I'd rather they didn't pick a fight that will surely be unpopular while handing lots of ammo to the left.

The system we have is set up so that states have power, and the feds have power...when the states abuse their power, as the democrat states did in denying blacks the right to vote, the feds stepped in...when the federal government abuses it's power, the states have to step up......

If the states pass laws that are UnConstitutional.....like these gun free zone laws that destroy the lives of honest people...then appealing to the feds may be the only answer....much like when the feds pass stupid gun laws then the states need to step up and oppose them.

 

[Iceweasel]

State laws should be up to the states, I don't like the feds meddling. I can understand school restrictions on firearms and will respect them. I'd rather they didn't pick a fight that will surely be unpopular while handing lots of ammo to the left.

The system we have is set up so that states have power, and the feds have power...when the states abuse their power, as the democrat states did in denying blacks the right to vote, the feds stepped in...when the federal government abuses it's power, the states have to step up......

If the states pass laws that are UnConstitutional.....like these gun free zone laws that destroy the lives of honest people...then appealing to the feds may be the only answer....much like when the feds pass stupid gun laws then the states need to step up and oppose them.

I don't agree that a public gun free zone is unconstitutional. No right is absolute. We have had numerous examples of shootings in courthouses so I understand the law against gun possession inside. I don't know all the state laws, clearly it would be taken to the high court if it gets out of whack.

 

[2aguy]

State laws should be up to the states, I don't like the feds meddling. I can understand school restrictions on firearms and will respect them. I'd rather they didn't pick a fight that will surely be unpopular while handing lots of ammo to the left.

The system we have is set up so that states have power, and the feds have power...when the states abuse their power, as the democrat states did in denying blacks the right to vote, the feds stepped in...when the federal government abuses it's power, the states have to step up......

If the states pass laws that are UnConstitutional.....like these gun free zone laws that destroy the lives of honest people...then appealing to the feds may be the only answer....much like when the feds pass stupid gun laws then the states need to step up and oppose them.

I don't agree that a public gun free zone is unconstitutional. No right is absolute. We have had numerous examples of shootings in courthouses so I understand the law against gun possession inside. I don't know all the state laws, clearly it would be taken to the high court if it gets out of whack.

At a courthouse there is armed security. Most schools, at the elementary level do not have armed security.

And I am not necessarily against prohibiting carrying guns in schools, I could be persuaded otherwise.....but.....I don't think it should be a felony if you forget to disarm before you drop your kid off or pick them up...or walk into the office to drop off their lunch that they forgot........

The Ohio reforms they want would allow the gun free zone people to simply ask you to leave instead of hammering you with a felony...which would destroy your life......and if you refused then it is a simple disturbing the peace beef and a fine....

 

[SavannahMann]

There are two sides to every argument, and while we have the rights under the Constitution, those rights are never absolute. For example, there is no restriction against Felons who have served their sentence having guns in the 2nd Amendment. There was even a time in our nations history that when people got out of prison, they were able to buy and possess firearms.

Yet the people now accept that the idea of restricting those individual citizens from certain rights is perfectly acceptable. I won't digress into limits on the First Amendment. Just that rights have limits.

As for gun free zones, the pro carry people are correct in their assertion that such zones are never gun free to someone intending harm to another. In other words, criminals. Yet, what is a criminal? Is a person who goes there to kidnap a child a criminal? Yes. Is a non custodial parent who is there to pick up their own child a criminal? Possibly. The water gets muddied pretty quick. A parent who has the right to be there, becomes a criminal, by carrying a weapon there. The permit, license, or authority to carry has exceptions.

I'll use Georgia since that is the state I'm in. Regardless if you are licensed, you can't carry in "Government Buildings". Georgia Carry : An information clearinghouse for Georgia Firearms License issues and news » Frequently Asked Questions

But even in that, there are exceptions. Basically, if there is a metal detector, you can't carry a gun inside. If there is no metal detector, you can, sort of, unless the access is restricted, and just what consttutes restricted, depends. Also, it depends if you find it is restricted, and leave immediately, or not. In other words, just don't do it.

You can now carry into a restaurant or bar, but if asked to leave, you have to do so immediately. Failure to leave immediately is Criminal Tresspass, which could get your license jerked.

So we have restrictions on our right to carry, which is something that has existed, even in the old West. You hung your gun up before entering the court. Cities and towns had gun checks and you did not carry then. The shootout at the OK Corral has as the excuse to get it started the Clanton's carrying guns in violation of the City Ordanance.

So restrictions have long existed, gun free zones existed, and arguing that license holders should have permission to carry anyway is an uphill battle. First, you have two choices to try and get the restrictions lifted. One, you can file a lawsuit. The danger there is that the Court could well find against you, and if you have the cash to take it up the line to the Supreme Court, your loss could well affect millions of gun owners. Option two, get the legislatures to remove the restriction.

There is also the Federal Law prohibiting guns near schools. Federal Law on Guns in Schools | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

So your battle is an uphill one. Every gun owner should know what limits exist on his rights to carry, especially those who are licensed to carry. Accepting the license, is agreeing to those limits. The same way as getting a drivers license is accepting the rights, and responsibilities for operating a motor vehicle.

Those who are licensed, and who do carry into a known Gun Free Zone, or restricted access area, have no excuse in my opinion. You have a right to carry a gun depending on the state laws where you reside. The 2nd Amendment is not absolute, as evidenced by the restrictions on who can own or possess a firearm. Restrictions that nobody is arguing should be lifted. So if you knowingly break the law, you have to deal with the consequences, and stomping your foot and saying it isn't fair, I'm not a criminal is somewhat diminished by the fact that you were committing a crime.

Your last choice is convincing the jury that the law is unjust, and you should be found not guilty. Jury Nullifaction if you like. I'm a supporter of that, and to summarize the teachings of St. Augustine, an unjust law is no law. Most Juries won't go that route though, so I wouldn't hold out much hope.

 

[jwoodie]

It is (or should be) up to the States to determine what acts constitute felonies, unless those acts are protected by that State's constitution or the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Toronado3800]

An interesting debate. If we are just following the law then yup, gun free zones have been declared constitutional.

If you want to debate theblaw it opens up a can of worms because it opens up the debate of changing the legality of guns. I'm conservative and think that is an issue which may go poorly as more people actually voted for Hillary somehow.

 

[Picaro]

Don't see how they can be banned on public property if CC is legal in the state, but basic common sense says courthouses and the like should be able to; I'm not big on ridiculous absolutist semantic games over why or why not. Private businesses should certainly have the right to bar them from the premises if they so choose, no question about it. Barring them from beer joints and booze cans is also fine with me. Schools can designate who can be armed and who can't. If they're merely banning them because of some screeching hypocritical loons whining, then I'm all for anybody carrying them on campus, until the screeching loons are put away in mental institutions or fired, and a sane policy discussed and implemented that id appropriate for the campus. Teachers should be armed when in Hood Rat Country, especially the wildlife parks and sanctuaries in South Chicago that have been 'community organized n stuff' by Obama and his fellow homosexual Muslims.

 

[2aguy]

Don't see how they can be banned on public property if CC is legal in the state, but basic common sense says courthouses and the like should be able to; I'm not big on ridiculous absolutist semantic games over why or why not. Private businesses should certainly have the right to bar them from the premises if they so choose, no question about it. Barring them from beer joints and booze cans is also fine with me. Schools can designate who can be armed and who can't. If they're merely banning them because of some screeching hypocritical loons whining, then I'm all for anybody carrying them on campus, until the screeching loons are put away in mental institutions or fired, and a sane policy discussed and implemented that id appropriate for the campus. Teachers should be armed when in Hood Rat Country, especially the wildlife parks and sanctuaries in South Chicago that have been 'community organized n stuff' by Obama and his fellow homosexual Muslims.

The only problem with your post......if a private business can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, there is no reason they can ban people from carrying guns on their property...since carrying a gun is a Constitutionally protected Right...just as the left claims a gay wedding means you lose your 1st Amendment protection of freedom of religion...

 

[sakinago]

Since the Constitution protects the Right to carry guns for self defense......is it right to destroy the life of a law abiding person who carries a legally owned and carried gun into a gun free zone? This comes up as Ohio and other states want to reform their gun free zone laws...so that a law abiding gun owner, who mistakenly brings their lawfully carried sidearm onto school grounds as they go about the normal business of dropping off and picking up their children, yet forget to take off their guns.........so they won't become convicted felons ...and have their lives destroyed even though they have committed no crime with the gun, and didn't even draw the gun from the holster.....they just carried it with them...as the Constitution allows.....

Here are some thoughts on this...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...enforcement-takes-human-toll-column/75414186/
Glenn Reynolds: How gun laws put the innocent on trial

ottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.)

Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.


If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies. Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something.

Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.

Simple answer, under our current "law," yes it can...even though it goes against the law of the land, which trumps all...that is forgotten, it's been forgotten for a while. This is merely one of the examples where we forgot what the law of the land means, which is small government, empowered citizen.

 

[regent]

I think the NRA has already ruled on this issue.