Currently against Fed Law to carry on school property?

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 . . .

 

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.

 

Some prior ranting and raving . . .

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

 

And some more . . .

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

 

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).

 

I did.

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 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 !

 

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

 

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).

 

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

(25) The term “school zone†means—

(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.