View Full Version : U.S. Representative Massie Proposes Repeal of Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act
Smokepole
01-13-2015, 08:46 AM
U.S. Representative Massie Proposes Repeal of Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act (http://massie.house.gov/press-release/press-release-us-representative-massie-proposes-repeal-federal-gun-free-school-zones-0)
U.S. Representative Massie Proposes Repeal of Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced H.R. 86, the Safe Students Act, which would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
“Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments,” said Massie. “Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.”
Roundballer
01-13-2015, 10:09 AM
As just general encouragement for the notion, HUZZAH!
Now, lets see this move any were at all. Just as prior attempts have failed there is little trust/hope for success.
Even thought SCOTUS struck down portions of the original GFSZ laws, congress just rewrote it and put it back in.
They don't like being told NO, and just like children they will pout and refuse to fix their mistakes. Starting all the way back in '34 the laws haven't fixed what they intended to fix.
DEVIL DOG
01-13-2015, 01:38 PM
Someone introduces this legislation every year. But some lunatic has to do something stupid & it gets put on the back burner. For a long while, no one in the Congress would dare mention any repeal of firearms laws after Sandy Hook. Especially any dealing with schools.
The LEFT just doesn't get it. And that's not just at the National level.
Smokepole
01-13-2015, 02:02 PM
Assuming there isn't another Sandy Hook in the near future, we might actually have a chance with this now that we not only control the House, but also the Senate.
Perhaps even enough strength to override Obama's veto.
DEVIL DOG
01-13-2015, 03:33 PM
If they can get the Keystone Pipeline past him, I'll have some hope.
Assuming there isn't another Sandy Hook in the near future, we might actually have a chance with this now that we not only control the House, but also the Senate.
Perhaps even enough strength to override Obama's veto.
I agree. It's similar to the perfect storm we had with Jenny in office. (R) House and Senate and (D) Executive.
If they can get the Keystone Pipeline past him, I'll have some hope.
I would have more hope if they actually wanted to change things. From what I hear they want to, but NOT from what I see.
shoxroxice
02-04-2015, 02:24 PM
This moved into the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations within the Committee of Judiciary. Both of which Mike Bishop of Michigan's 8th district is a member. I'd say everyone who has Bishop representing them should contact him and urge him to move this forward and to support this H.R. 86 bill. If he isn't your rep, you could contact your rep and ask them to urge him to support and move it forward. Passing a bill like this would be a huge step to being able to effectively protect our children rather than living under the delusion that a sign will keep them safe.
Latest Action: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/86/all-actions
xmanhockey7
02-05-2015, 02:36 AM
Given the number of concealed carry holders and law enforcement officers who violate this law everyday, it darn well needs to be repealed.
DP425
02-05-2015, 04:06 AM
Given the number of concealed carry holders and law enforcement officers who violate this law everyday, it darn well needs to be repealed.
How do they violate the law?
You might want to read up on the provisions of the law...
Edit:
Unless you're talking about the gray area of out of state carriers.
bigt8261
02-05-2015, 08:27 AM
I agree, this law does need to be repealed, but it is incredibly rare for a gun owning Michigander to violate it.
As long as you have a CPL or purchased your pistol with a "purchase permit", then the law doesn't apply to you. It's practically irrelevant in Michigan.
Caliper
02-05-2015, 12:52 PM
As long as you have a CPL or purchased your pistol with a "purchase permit", then the law doesn't apply to you. It's practically irrelevant in Michigan.
Hmmm, I think this may have been the one good thing to a permit to purchase?
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
[18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A)] does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
Sure sounds like a CPL or P2P would qualify for provision (ii). It would still affect non-CPL holding open carriers who purchased their pistol since the permit to purchase requirement was removed from gunshop sales though.
Of course, none of this is reason for the law to stay in place.
Purebass04
02-22-2015, 01:47 PM
I agree, this law does need to be repealed, but it is incredibly rare for a gun owning Michigander to violate it.
As long as you have a CPL or purchased your pistol with a "purchase permit", then the law doesn't apply to you. It's practically irrelevant in Michigan.
The purchase permit piece is not something I would try to cite for carrying in a school zone. The state law on this is pretty clear, and I don't think it would be a case you would win.
Roundballer
02-22-2015, 02:28 PM
The purchase permit piece is not something I would try to cite for carrying in a school zone.
First, the FEDERAL PISTOL FREE SCHOOL ZONE is an all inclusive area, anything that is within 1000 feet of a school property.
Second, the "Purchase permit" is the LICENSE to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistol. We refer to it as an LTP, RI-010, or the "Purchase permit", and it meets the requirements of the federal law to be "licensed". The "PSR" RI-060, does not seem to meet the requirements. MCL 28-422 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-422)
The state law on this is pretty clear, and I don't think it would be a case you would win.
What "state law" are YOU referring to? If it is Michigan's "Possession of firearm on certain premises prohibited" MCL 750-234d (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-234d), please point out the relevant part to us. If it is MCL 28-425o (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-28-425o), that one only restricts the carrying of a CONCEALED PISTOL.
MP Miller
02-22-2015, 03:03 PM
I like Representative Massie.
He is on a short list of political leaders I have any faith in.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.