Billings Man Arrested Under GFSZ Act

[Aguila Blanca]

Another fun fact. The federal law against discharging a firearm within a federal gun free school zone does not appear to have an exception for lawful self-defense.

Correct. We peons are not allowed to [legally] defend ourselves if we are attacked in a gun free school zone.

When it comes to that, I'm willing to roll the dice and hope that if I am attacked in a school zone and have to shoot to defend myself, maybe the aw-thaw-rih-tays won't charge me. What I am NOT willing to do is enter those zones without a carry license/permit issued by the state in which the school zone is located. At least that way I can show that I have made a conscious, conscientious, good faith effort to comply with the law.

 

[44 AMP]

I'd say can of worms, but its more like a nest of snakes. Worms don't bite, snakes, DO!

 

[FrankenMauser]

Here's San Francisco, for example:
...
The result is that trying to stay in strict conformity with the law for someone who doesn't have a carry permit issued by the state would be like trying to thread your way through a minefield.

I marked up a couple maps like this, for my (small) city, about 10 years ago. It was to prove the point in a discussion, that it was impossible to cross the city without passing through multiple GFSZs.
Not only that, but nearly every gun shop in town, as well as the indoor gun range, were all inside GFSZs.

And that was based solely upon obvious school buildings. When vocational centers, university satellite buildings and campuses, research labs, annexes, school district-owned parks, the two high schools with off-campus football fields and tracks, and various other forms of isolated school property and facilities are included, the GFSZ covers just about every square inch inside city limits - and plenty beyond.
We do have an unusually high number of satellite campuses, facilities, recreation areas, and other properties owned and used by schools, for the size of this city. But anyone can get covered by the same hidden blanket.

 

[44 AMP]

remember the wording saying "from school property" which may be hundreds of yards from the actual school buildings....

its a mess, and yet another example of a "feel good" law that does nothing but put ordinary law abiding citizens at risk and show how little actual thought went into both the writing and the passage of the law.

It seems to me that the people writing (and passing) these kinds of laws not only don't have our (law abiding citizens) interests in mind, but that they don't seem to consider them, at all.

It might be a common human condition, but when something that doesn't affect their personal interests they don't seem to consider anything "out of bounds", since it won't bother them. That doesn't seem like the proper thing for people who are hired (elected) to represent EVERYONE....does it?

 

[JohnKSa]

It seems to me that the people writing (and passing) these kinds of laws not only don't have our (law abiding citizens) interests in mind, but that they don't seem to consider them, at all.

It's hard for me to imagine that this law was intended to be anything other than exactly what it has turned out to be. A huge mess for law-abiding gun owners.

How many attacks on schools took place from 900 feet away from school property? My guess is none at all. This law wasn't to deal with an existing problem of people sniping at schoolkids on school grounds from hundreds of feet off school property because there was no such problem.

 

[eastbank]

we had a teacher here have a pistol in his car(unlocked) on the school parking lot and he sent a student to get some thing from his car and student looked in the glove box and found the loaded pistol and reported it another teacher, the police were called, but they refused to charge the teacher, its who you know.

 

[44 AMP]

Do note that it wasn't the local cops who arrested the guy in the OP, it was the Feds.

Specifically agents of the BATFE....

 

[Nathan]

I thought Mr. Gary Marbut’s email was interesting on this topic. Gary is very knowledgeable about MT state gun laws, Federal gun laws and their interactions. This might be worth a read to you. I considered it very enlightening.

Dear MSSA Friends,

Several you have written me about the media reports of Gabriel Metcalf
of Billings having been arrested and charged with violating the
federal Gun Free School Zones Act. The media has tried to paint
Metcalf as a total wingnut, but I have information in conflict with
that assessment. Maybe the chief complaint about Metcalf came from
the principal of the school across the street from Metcalf's home,
someone who may be anti-gun, or at least unfamiliar with firearms as
he accused Metcalf of carrying a rifle when he carried a single-shot,
20 gauge shotgun.

First, one bill that MSSA got enacted in 1995 exempts law abiding
Montanans from the GFSZA. Here's the current Montana law:

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that
the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the
people in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a
person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who
is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana
constitution is considered to be individually licensed and verified by
the state of Montana within the meaning of the provisions regarding
individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School
Zones Act.

The GFSZA declares that people licensed by the state are exempt from the GFSZA.

Second, Metcalf has an attorney from the federal public defenders
office. They have a reputation for being quite competent. I sent
Metcalf's attorney an email informing him about the Montana statute.
I've not heard back from him.

Third, there is another way to view this situation - as a small cloud
with a large golden lining. Consider ...

Since the SCOTUS Bruen decision and its major change of the 2A legal
landscape, our side has been winning RKBA legal cases all over the US.
The case against Metcalf has serious problems - it is worse than weak.
The current US Attorney for Montana is a solid political leftist.

While I'm not thrilled about the suffering and disturbance that
Metcalf must endure, this is a super opportunity to challenge and
maybe torpedo the stupid federal Gun Free School Zones Act.

Here's how I hope this will progress. Metcalf will move to dismiss
charges based on unconstitutionality the GFSZA under the new Bruen
standard. The federal district court judge will deny the motion to
dismiss (or grant it) based on the Bruen standard. That decision will
be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and from there to SCOTUS. We will
rally all sorts of 2A entities to weigh in with amicus briefs. The
GFSZA will go into the dust bin of history and the gun-grabbing feds
will get another legal drubbing.

So, other than the trouble for Metcalf, I see this situation as more
of a great opportunity for us and a stupid mistake by the feds.

I am watching ...

Best wishes,

--
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
Author, *Gun Laws of Montana*
http://www.mtpublish.com

Yes, I specifically asked his permission to repost his email in this thread.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

First, one bill that MSSA got enacted in 1995 exempts law abiding
Montanans from the GFSZA. Here's the current Montana law:

45-8-360. Establishment of individual licensure. In consideration that
the right to keep and bear arms is protected and reserved to the
people in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, a
person who has not been convicted of a violent, felony crime and who
is lawfully able to own or to possess a firearm under the Montana
constitution is considered to be individually licensed and verified by
the state of Montana within the meaning of the provisions regarding
individual licensure and verification in the federal Gun-Free School
Zones Act.

The GFSZA declares that people licensed by the state are exempt from the GFSZA.

WOW!

That's HUUUUUGE!

Thank you.

 

[Nathan]

Gary really has a keen eye and works relentlessly to get these little pro-gun laws passed….really creating a strong platform of pro-gun law in MT.

I would love for every state to have a Gary!

 

[JohnKSa]

The wording of the federal law is very specific. It says:

"...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..."

Will the state of Mt saying that he is "considered to be individually licensed" even though they haven't given him any license and haven't verified that he is qualified under law to receive the license they haven't given him, satisfy the wording of the federal law? I wouldn't bet on it, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Frankly, what I hope is that this will result in the GFSZ law being struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[steve4102]

It’s important to note that the GFSZA only applies to Public property.

Take the map of SF posted above for example, remove all the private property within those 1000ft diameters and what is left?

Streets, sidewalks, parks, public buildings etc.

So discharging a firearm in SD situation within 1000ft of school property on private property like a Walmart parking lot, or a liquor store, or any private property is not subject to the GFSZA.

Makes those School Zone maps a bit smaller

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It’s important to note that the GFSZA only applies to Public property.

Take the map of SF posted above for example, remove all the private property within those 1000ft diameters and what is left?

Streets, sidewalks, parks, public buildings etc.

So discharging a firearm in SD situation within 1000ft of school property on private property like a Walmart parking lot, or a liquor store, or any private property is not subject to the GFSZA.

Makes those School Zone maps a bit smaller

It doesn't make the zones any smaller, it just means that certain people within the zones are excepted. That's meaningless to the armed citizen trying to legally get from one side of the city to the other if he/she doesn't happen to have a permission slip issued by the state in which the school is located.

 

[44 AMP]

..even though they haven't given him any license and haven't verified that he is qualified under law to receive the license they haven't given him, satisfy the wording of the federal law? I wouldn't bet on it, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Lets see if I understand this correctly...Fed law exempts people who have a state issued license/permit, BUT requires the state to "verify" the person is "qualified" to obtain such a license/permit.

Does Montana issue such licenses/permits? I don't think so, but don't know for certain.

The law quoted in this thread, so far, indicates they don't, and, to me, says that "if we did, every breathing Montana citizen who is not disqualified from owning a firearm due to legal status, (criminal conviction) is therefore considered qualified.

seems to me that would meet the Fed requirement, though perhaps not in the way the Fed wants it (or assumes it will be) met. Am I missing something??

 

[Nathan]

Anybody know how his first hearing went?

 

[JohnKSa]

...seems to me that would meet the Fed requirement, though perhaps not in the way the Fed wants it (or assumes it will be) met. Am I missing something??

Here's the wording of the federal law:

"...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..."

1. Is he licensed by the State?
2. Does the state require that before an individual obtains a license that they verify that he is qualified, under law, to receive the license?

I can't say how a federal judge will interpret the law, but here are the most obvious answers to the questions. Both questions must be answered with: 'Yes.'

Answer to #1. No. He is not licensed by the state because they do not issue licenses.

Answer to #2. Since he did not obtain a license from the state, the second question is almost nonsensical, but let's try to answer it anyway. No. Because Montana does not issue licenses, they do not require that law enforcement verifies that an individual is qualified, under law, to receive a license.

We'll have to see how it plays out, but I don't think that he's going to get any help from the Montana law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

However, Montana has a statute that says for the purposes of the federal gun free school zone act, anyone who is not legally barred from possessing a firearm is deemed to be licensed.

So Montana says he is licensed -- but by enacting a blanket license that way, Montana doesn't individually verify that each individual is squeaky clean before issuing said license.

It's going to be interesting, and I'm glad I'm not the test case.

 

[JohnKSa]

They don't get to just "say" that. They have to actually satisfy the requirements in federal law. This isn't about what MT thinks is true, it's about whether a federal judge believes that MT law is consistent with federal law.

MT can say he is licensed, but they didn't actually license him. He has no records to show that he is licensed and neither does the state. Maybe their handwaving in the law will get past that requirement, I don't know.

What will be even harder for them to get past is the requirement in federal law that says that the state must have a law that requires BEFORE the individual obtains a license, law enforcement verifies that the individual is qualified, under law to receive the license.

"...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..."

MT very obviously has no law that requires pre-verification of licensees since they don't issue licenses. MT law enforcement very obviously does not have to verify that an individual is qualified, under law, to receive a license because they don't issue licenses. Therefore under the most obvious interpretation of the federal law, MT law fails to satisfy the requirements in the GFSZ law.

Will a federal judge see it that way? There's no way to know for sure, but it doesn't look good to me.

If I were going to bet on the guy getting off (a bet I would not make, by the way), I would say he has a better chance of doing so by having the GFSZ law being declared unconstitutional than by MTs half-hearted attempt to circumvent the provisions of the GFSZ.

Anybody know how his first hearing went?

He was denied bail.

 

[44 AMP]

...qualified under law to receive the license..."

This seems to be a significant point. "Qualified" under WHO'S law?? (which law???)

State law?? or Federal law??

If I'm reading this right, the Fed says states have to check to see if a person (state resident) is "qualified" to be issued a permit, in order for such a permit to be applicable to the GFSZ law.

Montana doesn't issue permits and states, essentially, that they consider everyone not "disqualified" to be qualified under their law, to obtain a permit, IF they issued permits, which, they don't.

I do agree that deciding if Montana's system meet the requirements of that specific part of federal law will take a court ruling, from which ever court gets the case.

The fellow involved was obviously (and stupidly) "poking the bear" on this issue, and other than the argument that the law is wrong in principle, and unconstitutional in specific, I don't see where he has much of a defense.

 

[jmr40]

In most places the state, city, or county owns everything from the center of the road for so many feet in each direction. The exact distance varies, but it is usually a pretty fair distance. In my yard the county owns about 15' from the edge of the pavement. I've never seen a private sidewalk unless it was along a private road.

It seems to me that this guy was exercising his 1st amendment rights more than his 2nd amendment rights by trying to make a point. And while we have a right to express our opinions, we don't have the right to force others to listen.

I'm all for 1st and 2nd amendment rights, but this guy went about it the wrong way and I can't have much sympathy for him. What he did was to make us all look bad. He in fact did more to hurt our 2nd amendment rights than help.

It appears local LE bent over backwards to reason with this guy. I'm sure they wanted him off the sidewalk too, but for political reasons didn't have the courage to make the arrest themselves. Someone called the Feds to keep from looking bad in the eyes of some locals.