Not saying your wrong, but doesn’t seem right. If that is the case, anyone who drives through a small town or anywhere prohibited places are that are within 1000 feet of a road, whether going to work or shopping, etc. could be subject to violating that part of the law.
Correct there is also an exemption for LTC under the federal law.
I guess that depends on who travels with or without a firearm? I guess I’m smart for leaving it properly locked away at the house instead of carrying, what I may or may not have, in my car.
If you want to legally carry withing 1000 feet of a school (unless you live within 1000 feet) you need a LTC of the same state. Permitless carry are in violation of federal law as are motorist protection act people. Potentially you might be prosecuted but realistically you won't be unless you are committing some other crime and get caught like selling drugs. Leaving your gun at home is your choice. I prefer to carry. Most of us like Renegade have many violations of federal law. If you want to be less illegal get a LTC. This may help you....
I guess if you have a bunch of money and willing to risk challenging the constitutionality on if the law is restricting the 2’nd amendment and putting citizens unknowingly and/or entrapping them in a violation of federal and state laws..
Its not that we don’t need law’s as law is what keeps societies within boundaries and sets rules that all agree upon. It’s when laws are written to infringe your constitutional rights and make good honest people get into trouble. Criminals dont necessarily care about any laws, (what is a definition of a criminal, as one would define it as breaking any law, others would suggest its when people have ill intents on doing nefarious acts), and anarchy isn’t a good way of life, so the requirement is good people with a good moral footing and caring for your neighbor rights as well, not just your own.
By the letter of the law, yes, they are breaking the law. Just another unconstitutional law making criminals out of good citizens.
United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995), was a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Commerce Clause. It was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that Congress had exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
| Holding |
|---|
| Possession of a handgun near a school is not an economic activity and doesn't have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, and therefore cannot be regulated by Congress. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is unconstitutional. |
This could be interpreted that if you’re on your own private property and you have a firearm in your possession, you are legally allowed to possess that firearm. It has been argued and extended in some cases that if you are in possession of a firearm on someone else’s private property and you are the guest of that person or entity, you’re also good.
