testtest

Permitless Carriers Can be Arrested for Driving Past a School While Carrying a Firearm

Annihilator

Annihilator

Emissary
Founding Member
Interesting article, thanks for sharing @Annihilator.

Here in my area the biggest outdoor range (Clark County Shooting Complex) has a school right next to the only road leading up to the range, I would estimate at least 1,000 people visit that range every week, so if this article is accurate every one them going up to the range that doesn’t have a CCW permit ( which I believe is at least half based on what I see on the ranges) are violating federal law. In fact the route that I normally take passes right by 2 schools 😮
 
Net Engineer said:
Interesting article, thanks for sharing @Annihilator.

Here in my area the biggest outdoor range (Clark County Shooting Complex) has a school right next to the only road leading up to the range, I would estimate at least 1,000 people visit that range every week, so if this article is accurate every one them going up to the range that doesn’t have a CCW permit ( which I believe is at least half based on what I see on the ranges) are violating federal law. In fact the route that I normally take passes right by 2 schools 😮
Click to expand...
Yea, saw this and said wow, I had no ideal of this
 
Since when should commonsense be inferred to anything the gubmint creates?

In many cases, the ambiguous signage allows for probable cause to stop but also it’s fair warning.
Think about a No Trespassing sign, let’s you know that you’re in violation and the mere sign is sufficient notice for an action to take place.

School Zone signage as a safety measure is about as effective as the Zone of Quiet sign is near the hospital. Thugs are frequently caught with guns, drugs as are registered sex offenders on or about school zones...and with all the justice reforms they just keep coming back.

Don’t Ask - Don’t Tell applies to the law abiding too. Exercise that precept accordingly.

Live on the edge…next time bring your own pancake maple syrup to the restaurant.
And if they indicate that anything on their menu is ‘award winning’ - ask to see the award.
 
Another good reason to have a license. But honestly, if a law abiding person driving down the street on the way somewhere minding their own business is stopped and had a legal gun in the car, it would be a really chickenshit charge. The federal law intended to come down hard on drug dealers and gang bangers and others with ill intent, not screw with John Q passing through
 
HayesGreener said:
Another good reason to have a license. But honestly, if a law abiding person driving down the street on the way somewhere minding their own business is stopped and had a legal gun in the car, it would be a really chickenshit charge. The federal law intended to come down hard on drug dealers and gang bangers and others with ill intent, not screw with John Q passing through
Click to expand...
Agreed. Don’t draw attention to yourself by doing something stupid and you won’t get stopped.
 
HayesGreener said:
Another good reason to have a license. But honestly, if a law abiding person driving down the street on the way somewhere minding their own business is stopped and had a legal gun in the car, it would be a really chickenshit charge. The federal law intended to come down hard on drug dealers and gang bangers and others with ill intent, not screw with John Q passing through
Click to expand...
I just renewed my license yesterday even though Ohio has constitutional carry, still, I rather have and keep my license.
 
Respectfully, The article is fear mongering! First the subject in the article was a prohibited person no matter if he was within 1,000 feet of a school or not. They Simply stacked the charges on him because of his prohibited status. Generally what happens.

The 1,000 fT rule also happens with narcotics often causing an enhanced felony.

The permit less carry is fairly new with little case law (minus Vermont) A Prosecutor is gonna have a hard time justifying let alone getting a conviction on a carrying within a 1,000 fT of a school case where Joe or Jane honest citizen gets pulled over for speeding by a school (and I’ve testified in Federal and Municipl court cases so I’ve seen 33 years worth of both so with few exceptions outside LA NJ etc it just isn’t gonna happen)
 
ECS686 said:
Respectfully, The article is fear mongering! First the subject in the article was a prohibited person no matter if he was within 1,000 feet of a school or not. They Simply stacked the charges on him because of his prohibited status. Generally what happens.

The 1,000 fT rule also happens with narcotics often causing an enhanced felony.

The permit less carry is fairly new with little case law (minus Vermont) A Prosecutor is gonna have a hard time justifying let alone getting a conviction on a carrying within a 1,000 fT of a school case where Joe or Jane honest citizen gets pulled over for speeding by a school (and I’ve testified in Federal and Municipl court cases so I’ve seen 33 years worth of both)
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
ECS686 said:
Respectfully, The article is fear mongering! First the subject in the article was a prohibited person no matter if he was within 1,000 feet of a school or not. They Simply stacked the charges on him because of his prohibited status. Generally what happens.

The 1,000 fT rule also happens with narcotics often causing an enhanced felony.

The permit less carry is fairly new with little case law (minus Vermont) A Prosecutor is gonna have a hard time justifying let alone getting a conviction on a carrying within a 1,000 fT of a school case where Joe or Jane honest citizen gets pulled over for speeding by a school (and I’ve testified in Federal and Municipl court cases so I’ve seen 33 years worth of both so with few exceptions outside LA NJ etc it just isn’t gonna happen)
Click to expand...
Bravo! Tacking-on, as we all might agree is not a bad idea for this doofus. However, given what's happening these days....?
 
ECS686 said:
Respectfully, The article is fear mongering! First the subject in the article was a prohibited person no matter if he was within 1,000 feet of a school or not. They Simply stacked the charges on him because of his prohibited status. Generally what happens.

The 1,000 fT rule also happens with narcotics often causing an enhanced felony.

The permit less carry is fairly new with little case law (minus Vermont) A Prosecutor is gonna have a hard time justifying let alone getting a conviction on a carrying within a 1,000 fT of a school case where Joe or Jane honest citizen gets pulled over for speeding by a school (and I’ve testified in Federal and Municipl court cases so I’ve seen 33 years worth of both so with few exceptions outside LA NJ etc it just isn’t gonna happen)
Click to expand...
We’ve had permit less open carry in Nevada since 1982, so you can carry a handgun anywhere in your car without a permit as long as it isn’t concealed on your person, you can carry long guns in your car without a permit as long as you don’t have a round chambered.
 
HayesGreener said:
Another good reason to have a license. But honestly, if a law abiding person driving down the street on the way somewhere minding their own business is stopped and had a legal gun in the car, it would be a really chickenshit charge. The federal law intended to come down hard on drug dealers and gang bangers and others with ill intent, not screw with John Q passing through
Click to expand...
The problem with the "intent" of the law is in the ambiguity. ANY time a door is cracked, the Marxist left will try to utilize the law to attack the law abiding. Does anyone on this site truly believe that the Biden regime won't use any and every loophole they find to disarm their political opposition (a.k.a. the typical American citizen)?
 
Blackmesa96 said:
The problem with the "intent" of the law is in the ambiguity. ANY time a door is cracked, the Marxist left will try to utilize the law to attack the law abiding. Does anyone on this site truly believe that the Biden regime won't use any and every loophole they find to disarm their political opposition (a.k.a. the typical American citizen)?
Click to expand...
I gave the answer in post #7.

I don't feel the need to ask the government's permission to protect myself. And thankfully I live in a state who's elected officials feel the same way.
 
ECS686 said:
Respectfully, The article is fear mongering! First the subject in the article was a prohibited person no matter if he was within 1,000 feet of a school or not. They Simply stacked the charges on him because of his prohibited status. Generally what happens.

The 1,000 fT rule also happens with narcotics often causing an enhanced felony.

The permit less carry is fairly new with little case law (minus Vermont) A Prosecutor is gonna have a hard time justifying let alone getting a conviction on a carrying within a 1,000 fT of a school case where Joe or Jane honest citizen gets pulled over for speeding by a school (and I’ve testified in Federal and Municipl court cases so I’ve seen 33 years worth of both so with few exceptions outside LA NJ etc it just isn’t gonna happen)
Click to expand...
Agree the individuals status was the root of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top