Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 02:26:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Douglas Davis <[d--i--a] at [rmi.net]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[r k ba alert] at [mainstream.net]>
Subject: Fact vs myth-GOA

 FACT SHEET ON GUN-FREE ZONES ACT: MYTH VS. REALITY

 by Gun Owners of America 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA
22151 (703)321-8585

 Some advocates, both in Congress and in the Second Amendment community,
have attempted to dismiss the tragic sweeping importance of new federal
legislation to create expansive "gun free zones" around every American
school. Regarding this sweeping ban, some have claimed that "its effect on
gun owners will be minimal" and that in most cases, the new law will "have
little effect."

 Of course, the anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass this gun
ban merely because they felt it would have a minimal effect. And EVEN IF the
impact of this new law was minimal, gun owners should be outraged by ANY law
restricting their rights. The Second Amendment states that the "right to
keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Those words do not leave any
room for making compromises.

 While some Second Amendment advocates have minimized the significance of
the "gun free zones," they further discount its importance by predicting
that the act will be declared unconstitutional by the courts. And yet,
ironically, REPUBLICANS on the House Judiciary Committee have issued a
statement just as confidently predicting that it will be upheld by the courts.

 Here are some of the questions that been raised, together with the answers
to those questions:

 Is this a sweeping piece of legislation?

 The "gun free school zone" legislation would create a virtual 1/2 mile wide
"gun free" circle around every American school (or a 1,000 foot zone going
in any one direction from any school) -- a zone which could possibly include
home schools. Anyone carrying a gun within this "gun free zone" would be
subject to five years in prison, unless he or she has fulfilled one of the
government-ordained exceptions to the law -- these exemptions treating our
liberties more as privileges, rather than rights. (More on this below.)

 Isn't this the same as the law that was passed in 1990?

 The new law is virtually word-for-word the same as the previous law. When
the first disastrous "gun free zones" provision was passed in 1990, it was
almost immediately challenged. The effective date was January 27, 1991. By
the first months of 1992, the events triggering the Lopez case, which
ultimately overturned the law in the Supreme Court, had transpired.
Aggressive enforcement was held in abeyance while the constitutionality of
this language wound its way through the courts.

 In this sense, this law was little different from other gun bans in which
enforcement was gradually tightened until the full repressive impact of the
legislation had been eased into place.

 Will this law pass constitutional muster?

 Those who rely on the courts to save us from this vast expansion of federal
gun laws by declaring the law unconstitutional are playing a very dangerous
game. Federal courts have not generally been friends of the Second Amendment.

 Furthermore, many analysts, including the REPUBLICAN leadership on the
House Judiciary Committee, are predicting that the superficial changes made
in the new act cure the constitutional defects that allowed the 1990 safe
schools bill to be overturned by the courts in the Lopez decision.

 Specifically, the new law requires that the gun "affects interstate and
foreign commerce." This "affects commerce" language is so broad that, in one
case, a farmer was held to have "affected commerce" by growing and wholly
consuming his own crops, on the basis that commerce would be altered if
every farmer did the same. Obviously, given this interpretation, there would
be no human activity that did not "affect commerce," and the change would
have absolutely no impact on the implementation of the unconstitutional 1990
law.

 Does this superficial change alter the constitutionality of the
unconstitutional 1990 version? Some members of the Second Amendment
community believe it does not. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee
argue just as adamantly that it does.

 The real answer is that no one knows. It is possible that a court will
overturn this statute. BUT, if it does not, we will be stuck with one of the
most repressive gun bans on the record books.

 Could this law ban gun ownership by home schoolers?

 The law bans guns within 1,000 feet from the "grounds" of a "public,
parochial or private school..." "School" means "a school which provides
elementary or secondary education, as defined under State law."

 Contrary to the assertions of the House Judiciary Committee, most -- if not
all -- states do recognize that home schools provide "elementary or
secondary education" for the purpose of exempting those students from the
mandatory attendance requirements of state law.

 The act does NOT specifically look to state law with respect to the
question of whether a "home school" is a "private school." But there is a
substantial danger that courts will make that finding. Webster's Dictionary
defines "private" to mean: "2. not open to, intended for, or controlled by
the public [a private school]." Obviously, a home school is not open to,
intended for, or controlled by the public. Every educated advocate
interested in preserving home schools who has reviewed this problem has
reached the same conclusion: there is too much of a danger that this act
will be interpreted to prohibit the possession of firearms by parents who
home school their kids.

 In fact, Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee have privately
conceded the dangers for home schools, quietly assuring other House
Republicans that they would be willing to entertain a "clarification"
protecting home schools. Unfortunately, these "assurances" are too-little,
too-late.

 Aren't there adequate exemptions to protect law-abiding gun owners?

 Let's look at these "so-called" exemptions:

 THE BOGUS "HUNTER EXEMPTION:" The so-called "hunter exemption" applies only
when the school authorities specifically give permission for a hunter to
cross their property -- and then only when the gun is unloaded. Assuming
that a hunter on the way to a hunting trip would have to cross fifty school
zones, that hunter would have to check with all fifty schools -- or risk
being a felon if he did not qualify under another exemption.

 THE "GUN OWNER REGISTRATION EXEMPTION:" The "gun free zones" law exempts
CCW (Carry Concealed Weapon) holders who live in a state that requires a
background check before the issuing of a permit. (This means that CCW
holders that live in states like Alabama are not exempted under this
provision because background checks are not mandated by state law.) What
this so-called exemption does is force a citizen to register with the
authorities as a gun owner before he can carry a loaded self-defense weapon
in his or her car.

 While many gun owners have made the choice to register themselves in order
to carry concealed, many have decided to keep their names off of any
government list. (In fact, the recent abuses in states like Virginia and
Pennsylvania -- where newspapers are printing the names of CCW holders --
show how easily this registration information can be abused.) Before this
"gun free zones" law, motorists in many states could legally transport a
loaded firearm for self-defense, without getting a CCW permit.

 For example, Vermont allows any citizen to carry a concealed firearm
without a permit. (Vermont law only prohibits the carrying of a concealed
firearm with the purpose of committing a crime.) Thus, citizens in Vermont
can carry legally without jumping through any government-ordained "hoops" --
there is no registration, license fees or taxes. But now under the federal
gun free zones provision, law-abiding motorists from Vermont and other
states will have to beware. Those who could previously transport a loaded
firearm will be stripped of their right to carry a self-defense firearm
within 1,000 feet of a school (unless they qualify under another exemption).

 THE USELESS "TRANSPORTATION EXEMPTION:" This extremely limited exemption
would ONLY allow a motorist to transport an UNLOADED firearm in a LOCKED BOX
or a LOCKED GUN RACK, assuming the motorist does not have a CCW permit as
explained above. Even an UNLOADED gun kept in a glove compartment for
self-protection would subject the bearer to a five-year prison sentence.
Furthermore, this is true even if the person transporting the gun is an
OFF-DUTY POLICE OFFICER.

 Note: Citizens in states like Virginia and Colorado should beware. While
these states allow motorists to carry a firearm in the passenger
compartment, an obvious conflict arises now when the motorist comes within
1,000 feet (about 3 blocks) of a school. Many jurisdictions now set up road
blocks to give sobriety checks and check for seat belts being worn. Police
who conduct these road blocks within a school zone will now have one more
"prohibited activity" to inspect for.

 THE "PRIVATE PROPERTY" TRAP: While it is true that a person living within a
school zone would not automatically have to relinquish his guns, it would be
UNLAWFUL for him TO CARRY HIS GUN TO HIS CAR PARKED ON THE STREET OUTSIDE
HIS HOUSE. Furthermore, the private property exemption only applies to
"private property not part of school grounds." Home schools might not be
exempted since these clearly fall within the definition of a school under
U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 921), which defines a "school" as a place which
"provides elementary or secondary education as determined under state law."

 Don't most states have comparable laws?

 No. Many states have laws which, on their face, are much narrower than the
federal law and do not create mammoth "gun-free zones." For instance,
Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States
like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all
prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school
functions." The fact that the expansive federal law is putting pressure on
states to enact equally repressive measures at the state level is a recent
development which represents perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the new
law.(1)

 Aside from that, while a few states, such as New York and Massachusetts,
have specialized in firearms repression, most have been considerably less
abusive than BATF in interpreting and enforcing anti-gun statutes, even when
those statutes may be overbroad. Even if the only impact of this legislation
were its massive expansion of BATF authority, this would be a very bad law.

 Finally, and obviously, anti-gun zealots did not work frantically to pass
this piece of legislation merely because they felt it was redundant of state
legislation currently on the books.

1 Even many of the states that have "school zone" laws are not as
restrictive as the federal law. For instance, while Florida has a law
prohibiting firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, it only applies "during
school hours" or during the time of a "sanctioned school activity." (The
federal law applies 24 hours a day.)

And while Texas contains language regarding firearms within 300 feet of a
school, this zone of "300 feet" only enhances penalties for a crime
committed within that area. In other words, one can legally carry a firearm
within 300 feet of a school in Texas -- the law only gives an enhanced
penalty for committing a crime within that same distance. The federal law,
of course, extends much further than the Texas law. The federal law applies
a ban on the possession of a gun (not just an enhanced penalty for the
commission of a crime as in Texas), and the federal statute extends the gun
free zone up to 1,000 feet from a school (not just to 300 feet as under
Texas law).