The SAF has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting the defendant in a Montana case challenging the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. The case is the United States of America v. Gabriel Cowan Metcalf.
Metcalf, a resident of Billings, Montana, lives across the street from an elementary school. He was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act after local police received reports of him carrying a firearm while patrolling his yard and neighborhood. Metcalf stated he was protecting himself and his mother from a stalker against whom she had a protection order. Montana law does not prohibit carrying firearms near schools.
“This case exemplifies the flaws of the ‘gun-free school zones’ law,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “While intended to address school shootings, the law unfairly disarms and legally jeopardizes law-abiding citizens who live or travel within arbitrarily designated 1,000-foot perimeters around schools. In many rural areas, schools are near essential community hubs, making this law unworkable and unconstitutional.”
SAF is joined in the brief by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut emphasized the broader issue, noting, “Buffer zone laws create accidental violations and make it nearly impossible for people to legally carry firearms in overlapping school zones. These restrictions are unconstitutional and erode fundamental Second Amendment rights.”
The Ninth Circuit’s decision could have nationwide implications for gun-free zone laws.
On multiple levels I am surprised and wish the defendant good fortune. Now to see if this case has a donation portion yet.
darn…fix this moderation thing TTAG.
Did you say bad things? Like Booger or something?
no
😆
not sure it is seen as a bug…
Parading around your yard with a gun near a school zone.
Why?
Because.
No one stood and held those who mandated signs that left the law abiding unarmed and criminals armed accountable. Instead the Gun was shoved under the microscope while Gun Control zealots behind the insane signs skated by…business as usual.
A sign left the law abiding unarmed? Strong sign. Yeah I know what you mean. How about giving to those on the front lines like the SAF, FPC, NAGR, RMGO, NRA/ILA and others? They have the ability to exact change far more than I could telling newcomers to this site about the racism behind gun control. History is absolutely important but you never add any information those about where to go to foster change.
I remember many years a go some anti-gun zealot floated a similar idea. Fortunately it was ruled as unworkable as schools are often on main roads or major secondary roads. Going to and from my range I drive directly past six schools and could be within a thousand feet of a lot more.
It will be interesting to see how this lawsuit goes, with schools being the proverbial “sacred cow” and all.
stop exempting cops and security personnel and all this goes away over night.
Want to stop this, just pass a law that no one, not the secret service, not cops, not army outside of a declared war, may be exempted from any firearms laws.
Not even SWAT.
All these insipid laws go away instantly when the only way the president, Governors, etc can address a crowd is via zoom. And cops get 10+1 mags and no select fire options. No grenade launchers.
Probably take a constitutional amendment, but seems like we’re going to need one, since “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is just not clear enough.