[GAGunOwner]

.

 

[Gunstar1]

It is not a rumor, they did pass it again with very few changes.

Not if you have a permit.

The reason they are not arresting people is that the law would be overturned in court and be shown as the feel good publicity stunt it is.

 

[Gunstar1]

oops it is not illegal if you have a permit issued by the state the school is in.

Here is a previous topic about the subject:
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=270

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Georgia Gun Owner, the actual text of the exemption is in the link GS1 posted.

I would say the answer to your question depends on the particular exemption. Police officer? Definitely.

Some of the others are a much harder call . . .

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

It is not a rumor, they did pass it again with very few changes.

Actually, as discussed in the link you posted, Congress had passed the change in the law before the U.S. v. Lopez decision, but the government chose not to rely on the change during their arguments. That lost the case for the government.

Take a careful look at the comment in the link about what John Roberts said, too, since he is our new Chief Justice. His comments during the Senate hearings were very illuminating as to his position on the Commerce Clause.

If we do not limit Congress' authority under this clause, then we might as well disband the state and local governments (or we could just reorganize them as local soviets of the federal government). We can also give up on the idea of a government of limited, specifically enumerated powers. Given the current course of the Supreme Court and its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Congress will be able to pass any law on any subject it wants, unless there exists in the Constitution a specific prohibition against it.

I have been ranting and raving incoherently on this for some time, but nobody listens to me.

This is more important to your gun rights than the Second Amendment!

Without Commerce Clause power to regulate firearms, there is no federal authority to regulate firearms.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Some prior ranting and raving . . .

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And some more . . .

http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=257

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

All of these are on topic, by the way, because the GFSZA is premised on the Commerce Clause, which Chief Justice Roberts informed us allows the regulation of guns in school zones if Congress finds that this "affects" interstate commerce.

Given the holding in Raich, I think even Scalia agrees with that . . .

In fact, we may only have two Justices who disagree with this line of reasoning (Alito and Thomas).

 

[jrm]

Actually, as discussed in the link you posted, Congress had passed the change in the law before the U.S. v. Lopez decision, but the government chose not to rely on the change during their arguments. That lost the case for the government.

I didn't check the legislative history, but the 8th Circuit claims that the law was amended after Lopez, and that that change resurrected the GFSZA, making it no longer unconstitutional. U.S. vs. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037.

 

[legacy38]

Even if the federal law were to be struck down it is in GA law.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I didn't check the legislative history . . .

I did.

. . . but the 8th Circuit claims that the law was amended after Lopez, and that that change resurrected the GFSZA, making it no longer unconstitutional. U.S. vs. Danks, 221 F.3d 1037.

There were two amendments, both dealing with the constitutionality of the statute under the Commerce Clause. I think I quoted the first one in the link above. It dealt with Congress' "findings" relating to the effect on interstate commerce

The second one added "that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce" to the offense itself.

The first one was just prior to Lopez (and quoted therein in a footnote where the Court pointed out that the government had chosen not to rely upon it). The second one, referred to by the 8th Circuit, was a year later.

The second one, however, does not contain Congress' findings. It was these "findings" (yes, I am putting them in quotes to make the reader do this :roll: at the thought that this subject was actually studied) that John Roberts insisted during his hearings were necessary to render the statute constitutional.

So we are both right ! :wink:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Even if the federal law were to be struck down it is in GA law.

Georgia law has a lot of exceptions that are not present in the federal law.

 

[john]

Ga CC permits carry on school property to pick up or drop off a student.

 

[wwomack]

Ga CC permits carry on school property to pick up or drop off a student.

But from my reading of the law you still can't enter the school building as it would be considered a "publicly owned or operated building" but you can drive up or be outside to pick them up.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Take a careful look at the comment in the link about what John Roberts said, too, since he is our new Chief Justice. His comments during the Senate hearings were very illuminating as to his position on the Commerce Clause.
. . .
Given the current course of the Supreme Court and its Commerce Clause jurisprudence, Congress will be able to pass any law on any subject it wants, unless there exists in the Constitution a specific prohibition against it.

Alexander Hamilton feared this would happen:

From The Federalist, No. 84:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" (emphasis added).

:-k

 

[GAGunOwner]

.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

18 U.S.C. 921(a):

(25) The term “school zone†meansâ€"

(A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or

(B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

(26) The term “school†means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

 

[GAGunOwner]

.

 

[ICP_Juggalo]

Ga CC permits carry on school property to pick up or drop off a student.

But from my reading of the law you still can't enter the school building as it would be considered a "publicly owned or operated building" but you can drive up or be outside to pick them up.

O.C.G.A. 16-11-127. Carrying deadly weapons to or at public gatherings.
(a) Except as provided in Code Section 16-11-127.1...

I believe that the first sentence in subsection (a) of 16-11-127 is the exception to carrying into a school building or at a school function while picking up or dropping off a student. It looks as if it is legal to carry into a school building while picking up or dropping off a student.

Remember before 1991, 16-11-127 included "school buildings or school functions" in the definition of a public gathering, but it was repealed and replaced with a "federalized" version, now 16-11-127.1

Does the legal eagles of the site have any differing opinion?

 

[jrm]

ICPJ -- I think your interpretation of 127.1 is correct, that a person with a GFL would be exempt from the felony provisions of 127.1, even inside a school building, if that person were picking up or dropping off a student. But, I think John also is correct, that the aforemention exemption would not do anything about the public gathering law, and that the misdemeanor provisions of that law would apply in a public school (but not a private one).