I know merely carrying a gun does not qualify as RAS, but if you are doing o in a location that would require a permit per GFSZ are police able to perform a Terry stop?
But do the courts/laws support that?gravedancer said:i would imagine that the cop that stops you would say so.
On a quick Google I found http://www.mml.org/insurance/shared/pub ... 009_04.pdf (pages 3-5)77-7-15. Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
A peace officer may stop any person in a public place when he has a reasonable suspicion to believe he has committed or is in the act of committing or is attempting to commit a public offense and may demand his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
You know... I should have thought of that. I totally forgot about it... there is no 1000' rule in Utah anymore.JoeSparky said:And Utah's GFSZs are now the property ONLY. No roving zones!!!
the officer needs to verify nothing! Same principle as pulling over drivers to see if they have a dl. Courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional. If they have ruled it unconstitutional for a licensed activity they would need ever more RASFor a constitutionally protected activity. Just sayingDaKnife said:Only with a CFP are the 1000' zones gone. I'd say with or without a permit, being within the zone of a school with a visible firearm is reasonable suspicion due to the Federal Law. If nothing else the officer needs to verify if you have a CFP. If so he should just let you continue on as the RAS has just evaporated. But thanks to the Federal law, being within the zone is RAS, as until the officer can verify you are authorized by the state, (CFP) you are in all appearances violating the law.
This is the bill that changed it. ----> http://le.utah.gov/~2011/bills/hbillenr/hb0075.htmJoe Cool said:Could we get a link to the relevant code supporting that there is no 1000' law for anyone?
...and this is what it used to say about 1000 feet.76-10-505.5. Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
(1) As used in this section, "on or about school premises" means:
(a) (i) in a public or private elementary or secondary school; or
(ii) on the grounds of any of those schools;
(b) (i) in a public or private institution of higher education; or
(ii) on the grounds of a public or private institution of higher education; and
(iii) (A) inside the building where a preschool or child care is being held, if the entire building is being used for the operation of the preschool or child care; or
(B) if only a portion of a building is being used to operate a preschool or child care, in that room or rooms where the preschool or child care operation is being held.
(2) A person may not possess any dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun, as those terms are defined in Section 76-10-501, at a place that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on or about school premises as defined in this section.
(3) (a) Possession of a dangerous weapon on or about school premises is a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Possession of a firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises is a class A misdemeanor.
(4) This section does not apply if:
(a) the person is authorized to possess a firearm as provided under Section 53-5-704, 53-5-705, 76-10-511, or 76-10-523, or as otherwise authorized by law;
(b) the possession is approved by the responsible school administrator;
(c) the item is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use; or
(d) the possession is:
(i) at the person's place of residence or on the person's property; or
(ii) in any vehicle lawfully under the person's control, other than a vehicle owned by the school or used by the school to transport students.
(5) This section does not prohibit prosecution of a more serious weapons offense that may occur on or about school premises.
76-10-505.5. Possession of a dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises -- Penalties.
(1) A person may not possess any dangerous weapon, firearm, or sawed-off shotgun, as those terms are defined in Section 76-10-501, at a place that the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is on or about school premises as defined in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1). <---- (this is the link to the "1000 foot rule")
(2) (a) Possession of a dangerous weapon on or about school premises is a class B misdemeanor.
(b) Possession of a firearm or sawed-off shotgun on or about school premises is a class A misdemeanor.
(3) This section does not apply if:
(a) the person is authorized to possess a firearm as provided under Section 53-5-704, 53-5-705, 76-10-511, or 76-10-523, or as otherwise authorized by law;
(b) the possession is approved by the responsible school administrator;
(c) the item is present or to be used in connection with a lawful, approved activity and is in the possession or under the control of the person responsible for its possession or use; or
(d) the possession is:
(i) at the person's place of residence or on the person's property;
(ii) in any vehicle lawfully under the person's control, other than a vehicle owned by the school or used by the school to transport students; or
(iii) at the person's place of business which is not located in the areas described in Subsection 76-3-203.2(1)(a)(i), (ii), or (iv).
(4) This section does not prohibit prosecution of a more serious weapons offense that may occur on or about school premises.
+1. this would be a "Papers please, must see your papers" sort of stop.JoeSparky said:the officer needs to verify nothing! Same principle as pulling over drivers to see if they have a dl. Courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional. If they have ruled it unconstitutional for a licensed activity they would need ever more RASFor a constitutionally protected activity. Just sayingDaKnife said:Only with a CFP are the 1000' zones gone. I'd say with or without a permit, being within the zone of a school with a visible firearm is reasonable suspicion due to the Federal Law. If nothing else the officer needs to verify if you have a CFP. If so he should just let you continue on as the RAS has just evaporated. But thanks to the Federal law, being within the zone is RAS, as until the officer can verify you are authorized by the state, (CFP) you are in all appearances violating the law.
I think these three quotes take care of where my concern was. Thanks!RustyShackleford said:+1. this would be a "Papers please, must see your papers" sort of stop.JoeSparky said:the officer needs to verify nothing! Same principle as pulling over drivers to see if they have a dl. Courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional. If they have ruled it unconstitutional for a licensed activity they would need ever more RASFor a constitutionally protected activity. Just sayingDaKnife said:Only with a CFP are the 1000' zones gone. I'd say with or without a permit, being within the zone of a school with a visible firearm is reasonable suspicion due to the Federal Law. If nothing else the officer needs to verify if you have a CFP. If so he should just let you continue on as the RAS has just evaporated. But thanks to the Federal law, being within the zone is RAS, as until the officer can verify you are authorized by the state, (CFP) you are in all appearances violating the law.
Ahh, yes. Anyone else have thoughts on this?UtahJarhead said:There's still the Federal GFSZ to think about, folks. It's still got the 1000' rule. A school zone is defined as any area within 1000 feet of the actual school building.
I think that carrying a gun within 1000ft of a school building, even if technically legal now by utah state law, is still just asking for a whole lot of trouble, and potentially legal bills, to prove you were in the right. If you can afford to be the guinea pig for establishing legal precedence, by all means go for it. It will make things easier on the next guy who finds himself in the same situation.Joe Cool said:Ahh, yes. Anyone else have thoughts on this?UtahJarhead said:There's still the Federal GFSZ to think about, folks. It's still got the 1000' rule. A school zone is defined as any area within 1000 feet of the actual school building.
+1JoeSparky said:the officer needs to verify nothing! Same principle as pulling over drivers to see if they have a dl. Courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional. If they have ruled it unconstitutional for a licensed activity they would need ever more RASFor a constitutionally protected activity. Just sayingDaKnife said:Only with a CFP are the 1000' zones gone. I'd say with or without a permit, being within the zone of a school with a visible firearm is reasonable suspicion due to the Federal Law. If nothing else the officer needs to verify if you have a CFP. If so he should just let you continue on as the RAS has just evaporated. But thanks to the Federal law, being within the zone is RAS, as until the officer can verify you are authorized by the state, (CFP) you are in all appearances violating the law.
Also a very good point. Local police do not have jurisdiction to enforce federal laws, as I understand it.UtahJarhead said:It's NOT a gun-related argument at that point. The argument is did the police (city, county, or state) have both RAS to stop you *AND* jurisdiction to stop you for a federal crime?
No it's not the same as asking to see a DL. If you are carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school building you are in violation of the law. The federal law has allowed the states to authorized certain individuals to enter the zone, but as that group is a small subset of the general population. The initial view of any officer is that anyone entering a school zone with a firearm is violating the federal law. The only way to disprove this reasonable assumption is to stop and ask to see if the individual has authorization i.e. a permit.JoeSparky said:the officer needs to verify nothing! Same principle as pulling over drivers to see if they have a dl. Courts have ruled that this is unconstitutional. If they have ruled it unconstitutional for a licensed activity they would need ever more RASFor a constitutionally protected activity. Just sayingDaKnife said:Only with a CFP are the 1000' zones gone. I'd say with or without a permit, being within the zone of a school with a visible firearm is reasonable suspicion due to the Federal Law. If nothing else the officer needs to verify if you have a CFP. If so he should just let you continue on as the RAS has just evaporated. But thanks to the Federal law, being within the zone is RAS, as until the officer can verify you are authorized by the state, (CFP) you are in all appearances violating the law.
The site continues on at length and does note that there is no obligation for local police to enforce federal law, but that it IS NOT PROHIBITED.Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court's conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.
The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions 'to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.'" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.
Bad analogy. It's illegal to be on the road without a registration and driver's license with no warrants. The only way to prove you're clean is for the cop to pull you over and check you out. A secure area is one thing. A school zone is not one of those.DaKnife said:No it's not the same as asking to see a DL. If you are carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school building you are in violation of the law. The federal law has allowed the states to authorized certain individuals to enter the zone, but as that group is a small subset of the general population. The initial view of any officer is that anyone entering a school zone with a firearm is violating the federal law. The only way to disprove this reasonable assumption is to stop and ask to see if the individual has authorization i.e. a permit.
What percentage of the population of the state would you reasonably assume is legal to drive a car ?UtahJarhead said:Bad analogy. It's illegal to be on the road without a registration and driver's license with no warrants. The only way to prove you're clean is for the cop to pull you over and check you out. A secure area is one thing. A school zone is not one of those.DaKnife said:No it's not the same as asking to see a DL. If you are carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a school building you are in violation of the law. The federal law has allowed the states to authorized certain individuals to enter the zone, but as that group is a small subset of the general population. The initial view of any officer is that anyone entering a school zone with a firearm is violating the federal law. The only way to disprove this reasonable assumption is to stop and ask to see if the individual has authorization i.e. a permit.
Let me ask you a third question: What percentage of the population of the state would you reasonably assume to have a CDL?gravedancer said:What percentage of the population of the state would you reasonably assume is legal to drive a car ?UtahJarhead said:Bad analogy. It's illegal to be on the road without a registration and driver's license with no warrants. The only way to prove you're clean is for the cop to pull you over and check you out. A secure area is one thing. A school zone is not one of those.
What percentage of the population of the state would you reasonably assume is legal to carry a gun into a school zone?