OH will recognize IN LTCH in the near future!!!!!!

[rhino]

The 1000' rule is Federal law. It applies to everyone that does not have a license issued by the state in which the school is located.

That's a detail of which I was unaware until this topic. It would be difficult to enforce in any meaningful way and how many people would ever have a reason to know they were in violation?

Yet another gift given by a bad law that should not have existed in the first place, much less been resurrected after the first version was nixed.

 

[Dead Duck]

The 1000' rule is Federal law. It applies to everyone that does not have a license issued by the state in which the school is located.

Federal?
So - If my brother (Utah Res/Licensed) visiting me in IN and we go to an IN school, I can drive into the parking lot but he needs to stand across the street?

And in all other states that accept us, we still can't go near schools? I've been around for awhile but I've never heard this one.

 

[chipbennett]

Federal?
So - If my brother (Utah Res/Licensed) visiting me in IN and we go to an IN school, I can drive into the parking lot but he needs to stand across the street?

And in all other states that accept us, we still can't go near schools? I've been around for awhile but I've never heard this one.

Has the law been challenged? Seems like it would be a violation of Equal Protection and Due Process, that only a federal judge could pretzel-logic his way around.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dead Duck]

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well -
I don't like it.

 

[Mgderf]

Has the law been challenged? Seems like it would be a violation of Equal Protection and Due Process, that only a federal judge could pretzel-logic his way around.

I agree. I understand ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how are you supposed to be able to identify the location of every school, church pre-school, day-care... in an area you are unfamiliar with?

The yellow pages won't tell you, your GPS is almost ALWAYS wrong, Google sucks for updating info. like this.
Just how are you supposed to exercise your rights under such circumstances?

 

[chipbennett]

I agree. I understand ignorance of the law is no excuse, but how are you supposed to be able to identify the location of every school, church pre-school, day-care... in an area you are unfamiliar with?

The yellow pages won't tell you, your GPS is almost ALWAYS wrong, Google sucks for updating info. like this.
Just how are you supposed to exercise your rights under such circumstances?

I'm thinking more along the lines of: one person can exercise a natural right while within 1000 feet of a school, while another, equally law-abiding person, cannot. The state of issuance of the carry permit does not make one person more law-abiding than the other, nor does it make one person more likely to be unlawful than the other - and the state in question honors the carry permits of both people.

 

[slowG]

Waiting for the first thread "got pulled over in ohio and..."

 

[jblomenberg16]

Waiting for the first thread "got pulled over in ohio and..."

....the Officer stole my wallet....

 

[Hawkeye]

That's a detail of which I was unaware until this topic. It would be difficult to enforce in any meaningful way and how many people would ever have a reason to know they were in violation?

Yet another gift given by a bad law that should not have existed in the first place, much less been resurrected after the first version was nixed.

A gift given by... wait for it... its coming to me... JOE BIDEN! Yes, the same Joe Biden who thinks you should just fire a shotgun off into the air to scare off intruders.

I don't think this is likely used too much as a first chargeable offense, but rather as a tripwire to add Federal charges on to someone the police are trying to otherwise corner or coerce. Sy they catch someone on some other relatively minor charge and sue this to layer on a Federal charge to try to get the person to plea bargain. But that's just my guess.

 

[TheSpark]

A gift given by... wait for it... its coming to me... JOE BIDEN! Yes, the same Joe Biden who thinks you should just fire a shotgun off into the air to scare off intruders.

I don't think this is likely used too much as a first chargeable offense, but rather as a tripwire to add Federal charges on to someone the police are trying to otherwise corner or coerce. Sy they catch someone on some other relatively minor charge and sue this to layer on a Federal charge to try to get the person to plea bargain. But that's just my guess.

Regardless, the risk is too high. If charged and convicted of this you lose your right to own/carry a gun for life.

However, I do think someone would be pretty successful in higher courts at getting this thrown out due to constitutional grounds.

 

[TheSpark]

A gift given by... wait for it... its coming to me... JOE BIDEN! Yes, the same Joe Biden who thinks you should just fire a shotgun off into the air to scare off intruders.

Actually, I think George HW Bush is the one ultimately responsible for this as he signed it into law. Replubicans do stupid stuff from time to time as well.

 

[ThatOneKid]

So, an 18 year old with an Indiana LTCH can carry into Ohio correct? As far as we understand?

 

[chipbennett]

So, an 18 year old with an Indiana LTCH can carry into Ohio correct? As far as we understand?

I would consult a lawyer. My (IANAL) suspicion is that you would have to follow Ohio law, which would stipulate a minimum age of 21:

http://handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Had a good day of carrying in OH. OC'd a gas station, no words spoken. Left gun on/out while driving around.

I can get used to this.

 

[ATM]

I would consult a lawyer. My (IANAL) suspicion is that you would have to follow Ohio law, which would stipulate a minimum age of 21:

http://handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf

The laws cited in that link (o.r.c. 2923.21 and 2923.211) merely restrict purchasing, selling or furnishing handguns to anyone under 21.

Their assumption that one would be prohibited from carrying a handgun under age 21 is left unsupported. I'd need to see something more cited for such a conclusion.

Read those laws here: Lawriter - ORC

 

[Redhorse]

The laws cited in that link (o.r.c. 2923.21 and 2923.211) merely restrict purchasing, selling or furnishing handguns to anyone under 21.

Their assumption that one would be prohibited from carrying a handgun under age 21 is left unsupported. I'd need to see something more cited for such a conclusion.

Read those laws here: Lawriter - ORC

I agree. From my reading of this law it Shikoku says that all carry permits are recognized without any mention of age.

 

[Hawkeye]

Actually, I think George HW Bush is the one ultimately responsible for this as he signed it into law. Replubicans do stupid stuff from time to time as well.

Bush would not have had anything to sign if Uncle Joe had not introduced the bill. It's on Joe, just as I said.

 

[Hawkeye]

Regardless, the risk is too high. If charged and convicted of this you lose your right to own/carry a gun for life.

However, I do think someone would be pretty successful in higher courts at getting this thrown out due to constitutional grounds.

I'm not saying there is not risk. If you actually read my post, and the one quoted, you'll see that. I'm responding to Rhino's comment about it being difficult to enforce. Which it is. But may be a toll that LOE/Prosecutors can use if they bust someone, say, on a local violation and find the perp was carrying in teh "school zone". Tehy might be able to sue the threat of a Federal charge to get said perp to cooperate on something.

The bigger risk is that its y to possible for an otherwise law-abiding resident of Sate A, being properly licensed or permitted to carry by Sate A and such status being recognized in State B, to inadvertently wanted into a "school zone" while traveling in State B. THe real rub being that a "" State B carry person wont' be in violation.

Your comment on success in the courts has not been borne out in actual cases. the preponderance of the reported cases seem to uphold this law.

 

[chipbennett]

The laws cited in that link (o.r.c. 2923.21 and 2923.211) merely restrict purchasing, selling or furnishing handguns to anyone under 21.

Their assumption that one would be prohibited from carrying a handgun under age 21 is left unsupported. I'd need to see something more cited for such a conclusion.

Read those laws here: Lawriter - ORC

And were I the person asking the question, I would not rely on mere supposition. Consult a lawyer, or better yet: call the AG office for clarification.