Talk:Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jayhinge1502.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guns On College Campuses; New Reception Section[edit]

An anonymous author added a section about "guns on college campuses." First, this law does not legally apply to college campuses, unless they are public property within 1000 feet of a K-12 school. The author's information supports a general gun control viewpoint, with specific emphasis on college campuses. I created a "Reception" section after reviewing Wiki Criticism guidelines in order to better organize the article and allow criticism of the type the anonymous author wants to include. However, much of the anonymous author's information is not appropriate for this article and would be much more appropriate in a campus carry article. The fact that GFSZA does not apply to college campuses may be one of the criticisms that proponents of this law have, and this fact could fit nicely in the new "reception" section. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BATFE Letter[edit]

On the the "thumbnail" of the letter from the BATFE in regards to concealed carry by a person within a GFSZ "...BATFE Letter Stating CCW Reciprocity Does Not Exempt A Permit Holder From GFSZA", this caption is not entirely accurate.

If you read the letter carefully, the author of the letter Gary F. Thomas states (correctly) that one of the provisions that would exempt people from that law is when the person possesses a license from the state or political subdivision upon where the school is located at.

The caption above incorrectly states that possession of any CCW (or as it is termed in Virginia: "Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun") does not count as an exception to the GFSZA.

In reality, the person that Mr. Thomas responded to can indeed avail herself of the above exemption, but only if she is in possession of a Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun issued by a county circuit court AND the school is withing the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Is there anyone here willing to modify the caption to better reflect this? Utelprob (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Is there anyone here willing to modify the caption to better reflect this?"

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Int21h (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just made edits that should address your concern. I replaced the 2002 letter with a newer July 2013 letter that reaffirms the content of the 2002 letter and also addresses two additional areas that the 2002 letter did not. These additional areas being the discharge of a firearm in a school zone (by a permit holder) and the legal prohibition that a conviction under GFSZA triggers in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The new citation for the new letter is "July 25, 2013 BATFE Letter Regarding GFSZA Effect on CCW Permit Holders."
--MoonOwl2010 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effects Section[edit]

This section needs a little help. It doesn't address any of the effects from the opposite (the pro-enactment) side of the issue. - JaKaL! (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The effects stated are facts. Whether the effect is positive or negative is the reader's personal opinion. I believe they are stated neutrally. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but there's no way this can be portrayed as neutral, nor can it factually be stated that this is an "effect" of this particular bill. "Since this 1990 gun ban, more school shootings have occurred than in all the years leading up to the ban; this includes previous years when machine guns were sold at Sears and children were allowed to own guns." The last clause is particularly blatant; its only purpose is to ridicule the idea that gun control in general has any merit. Did I mention that most of the sources from the entire Effects section are from pro-gun activist sites... opencarry.org's index page proudly quotes another website describing them as "the shock troops of the gun lobby." This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and rational people on any side of this issue. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the paragraph you cited about mass shootings in school zones was not neutral. I did not write it. I just completely removed it as it was not relevant to the section it was in anyway. Although many citations do come from sources such as opencarry.org, I still think they are cited neutrally on here. For example, Fed GFSZA, by statute, prohibits unlicensed carry within 1000 feet of a school. Pro-gun side feels this is a negative impact, while anti-gun side feels this is a great benefit. The article text doesn't take a side. In the interest of neutrality, I just changed "law abiding" to "without criminal conviction." I also changed "Effects" to "Legal Effects," and made some other changes to make the article more neutral. If people want to add paragraphs about the perceived failure or success of the law as it relates to school shootings, new sections needs to be created. "Criticism" and "Praise" for example. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Implies Certain Constitutionality[edit]

The statement 'Congress re-enacted the law in the GFSZ Act of 1996, following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A) placing the burden on the prosecutor to prove an additional element that the gun, " has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce." ' is misleading and simply not true. A quick perusal of U.S. v. Lopez shows that the court decided the Act exceeds the authority provided by the commerce clause whether or not guns affect commerce. Thus, the change in wording doesn't "correct" any "technical defects". The law is invalid, and probably never used outside of additional charges routinely used to scare innocent people into plea bargaining. Marshaul (talk) 05:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose an edit to neutralize bias and retain legal and factual accuracy.

I removed the implication that congress corrected any technical defects and instead simply stated they did not address the Supreme Courts assertion that carrying a gun in a school zone would ever in anyway effect interstate commerce. 216.58.143.229 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actual text[edit]

I looked in to this and it is not the actual text of the law. so it won't be acceptable at Wikisource. Here are two serperate sources for the real text [1] & [2]--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain meaning of this command.[edit]

(rv. {{move to Wikisource}})

I've looked around and can't seem to figure it out. Thanks. --NDM 07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a criticism section.[edit]

There is lots of criticisms of the concept of "gun free zones" - sadly vindicated yesterday IMO :( AbstractClass 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. perhaps a list of school shootings that have happened inspite of this law and a list of non police who have stopped school shootings with legal firearms.

I don't think much criticism of it belongs here, because the arguments involved apply to the gun-control debate in general. How about adding a link to articles about gun control, the Second Amendment, and school shootings? If we're to discuss the specific features of this law and court case, the thing to point out is the way Congress justified it in terms of "interstate commerce." Congress claimed that it had authority to restrict gun ownership in this way under the Commerce Clause because gun violence near schools scares kids into not learning, which would have long-term effects on the economy -- a very tenuous connection, as the Court ruled. -Kris Schnee 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Legislation?[edit]

Could someone please cite the version of the bill that was re-passed after the Supreme Court decision? -Kris Schnee 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikipedian here. Would it be OK to add the "Fact" tag to the end of the final sentence ("Congress re-enacted the law following the Supreme Court's ruling, correcting the technical defects identified by the Court by adding Congressional findings concerning the importance of establishing gun free school zones to protect public safety and interstate commerce.") in the introductory section? Alternatively, the name of the subsequent Act, so people can look it up themselves, would be helpful. I have heard this claim made (and refuted) by several attorneys, but it appears to be hearsay on all of their parts. Shooter tx 07:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added "Template:Fact" request to the aforementioned sentence. --Shooter tx 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


See here[3] for the follow up legislation, I think. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I have changed wording in the article to make it more neutral. I have also added citations where appropriate. Is the article's neutrality still disputed? MoonOwl2010 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose[edit]

Any idea what this law was supposed to do? I mean, did proponents hope it would reduce school shootings or gun violence? Also, can we have some links to other gun control laws? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. The qualifier "Federal" proposed by MoonOwl2010 is unnecessary, as there are no other acts by this name. (Cf. Firearm Owners Protection Act, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.) -- Hadal (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 → Gun-Free School Zones Act –The article is actually about two laws, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, and its successor, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995 -- or was it 1996? At any rate, the best title for the article is "Gun-Free School Zones Act". I'm making this a requested move because (1) I'd like to allow for a discussion before a move is made, and (2) an admin will need to do the move -- the new name is a redirect with an edit history, because the article used to have that name, and then was moved to the current name, in 2006. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Gun-Free School Zones Act" was not moved to "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", it was merged into it and then changed to a redirect. Right before that was done, the articles looked like this and this respectively. And I do agree that there should be only one article. But my requested move still stands, for the reasons I gave in the previous post. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article should be renamed to the "Federal Gun Free School Zones Act." The second act is officially named the "Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995," as it was written in 1995, although not signed by President Clinton until 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonOwl2010 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing a new name of "Gun-Free School Zones Act" -- without the word "Federal", and with a hyphen between "Gun" and "Free". Does that sound okay? — Mudwater (Talk) 10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to include "Federal" since the article is specifically about the federal law. (Some states have their own laws) MoonOwl2010 (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name[edit]

I recently moved the article name to "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" from "Gun-Free School Zones Act", given the fact this is the official short title. I was oblivious to the previous discussion. I have not been able to reference any "Gun[-| ]Free School Zones Act of 199[5|6]", even looking at the notes of 18 U.S.C 922. This reference may just be a common name; can anyone find the Pub. L. number, or Statutes as Large page for the re-enactment? The cited "minor changes" PDF from gunlaws.com gives Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 104–208 (text) (PDF), which is the wikisource:Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, an omnibus bill which is massive and does a whole awful lot, but I just cannot find anything relevant to this article. Int21h (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The name of a Wikipedia article generally should be the most commonly used name, that most readers would be looking for, not necessarily the legal name. (2) It seems unlikely that there will ever be two articles, one for the original law and one for the law as amended -- I can picture the merge proposal now -- so the name "Gun-Free School Zones Act" seems to cover things nicely. (3) The previous discussion about the article name was pretty recent, so I think we should stick with that decision. With that being said, it wouldn't hurt to talk about it some more. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see no problem with the shortened name, given the previous discussion. I did manage to find §657 which made the cited changes. However, I still see no reliable reference to "... Act of 1995", which I do not think is an actual title given it seems to only be 2 sections of an omnibus bill, so I would argue that non-existent act should not be used as a reason to shorten the name to cover a non-existent act. But shortened without the the 1990 for brevity is fine. Int21h (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) It seems to me that the names "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990" and "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" are not substantiated by the references used in the article. So, I've changed the wording to refer to the "Gun-Free School Zones Act". But if you, or anyone, can show an appropriate reference for either one of those names, please feel free to change the text of the article again, using a footnote as a reference. (2) It looks like there's a consensus to put the article name back to "Gun-Free School Zones Act", so let's go ahead with that. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this document, which is used as a reference in the article, does refer to the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", and to the "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995". So, probably it would be appropriate to refer to those names in the article text after all. But either way, I'd say we're good to go on changing the article name back to "Gun-Free School Zones Act". — Mudwater (Talk) 12:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The amended law is commonly referred to as the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 because it was created by the "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995." Which President Clinton discussed in the letter you cited above. The article name should be "The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act." MoonOwl2010 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly by Wikipedia conventions the article name should not start with "The". As far as "Federal", what do you think about what Hadal said in the archived talk page section above? Plus, the article name should be the most commonly used name, that most readers would be looking for, whether or not that's legally exact. — Mudwater (Talk) 08:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article must include "federal" as this article is about the federal law. Hadaj was mistaken about there being no other laws with the same name. There are state laws with identical or near identical names in Wisconsin, California, Texas, and until the recent repeal, Utah. This article must contain "federal" not only because it is the law's proper name, but in order to differentiate it from any separate articles that may be written in the future concerning the separate state-level laws. MoonOwl2010 (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The President sent a letter to Congress asking them to introduce the "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995", but there is no evidence to suggest this was passed or even introduced like he asked. gunlaws.com, registered to Alan Korwin, hardly qualifies as a reliable source. So I guess I should revise what I said to include what I thought was implied: are there any reliable sources for an enacted law named, or even possessing the phrase, "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995"? Because there is for "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990", the name for which I moved the name to. Int21h (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. Quoting Congressional Record S7920-7921. "Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, with my colleagues Senators Specter, Simon, Feinstein, Bradley, Lautenberg, Chafee, and Kerrey, we rise today to introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995."
http://www.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/conlaw/gunlaw.html
The NRA verifies this was passed. I quote, "In September 1996, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) offered as an amendment to the Treasury, Postal Appropriations bill a slightly modified version of the original Gun-Free School Zones Act. It passed and was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997 "
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=62

gpo PUBLIC LAW: 104-208 MoonOwl2010 (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my above statements where I say that the "Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997" does indeed include amendments to the 1990 act, but does not reference "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995". This was my original point, and it is my point now. This conversation seems to be going around, ending up at non-reliable sources, converting to a conversation about Presidential statements or Congressional Record statements, then ends back up at the omnibus bill 1997, which makes no such claims. The conversational again will likely revert to Alan Korwin's gunlaws.com which isnt reliable, vague references to these acts in Presidential statements which are nowhere to be found in the omnibus bill 1997 or any other duly enacted law, vague references to acts in the Congressional Record which are nowhere to be found in the omnibus bill 1997 or any other duly enacted law, vague references to "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995" in other sources which are nowhere to be found in the omnibus bill 1997. Rinse and repeat. So, just to summarize:

  • There are no references to "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995" in any act of congress that was duly enacted into law (and hence will be found in the Statutes at Large)
  • There are references which say the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995" in the Congressional Record, which means they were indeed debated, but does not even suggest such wording ever made it into law, like most other things mentioned in the Congressional Record, like re-instituting slavery for instance
  • There are references which say the "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995" are indeed in some duly enacted law, but (refer above) there are no references to "Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995" or "Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995" in any act of congress that was duly enacted into law, which adds evidence that these sources are not reliable

Am I wrong? Int21h (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Int21h, I concede. You've made an excellent argument. I just went through the Crime Control Act of 1990 and it does indeed call it the "Gun free School Zones Act of 1990." I've also gone through PUBLIC LAW: 104-208 (The Omnibus Appropriations Bill FY97) and the amendments made to the original law are included in this bill, but it never actually says "Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995." Would it be fair to leave the article title as is, but create a link so readers are directed to this page when searching for Gun Free School Zones Act 1995? MoonOwl2010 (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for any meta content that may better Wikipedia just do it. It is nowhere near as important as actual article material which may be potentially misleading or wrong. Int21h (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Can someone add a section on the genesis of this bill. Is it just a poorly thought out piece of legislation designed to make schools safer with its effect on gun owners going about their normal business an unintended consequence, or is it a disguised attempt to make it illegal to carry a firearm in an urban setting, with the title used to sell it to the public.--KTo288 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it. Apparently, I was not the only one having a hard time finding the crime's provenance. An article in the Duke Law Journal used the verb "concealed" and the phrase "widely ignored" to describe the post-SCOTUS decision amendment in 1996 in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. While I congratulate the U.S. Congress for doing what most legislatures of the world and Europe refuse to do, by being transparent and give laws names, putting criminal laws in omnibus bill is a horrid practice that reminds me more of the practice of Germany and France than of England and the United States. (Like's one of my favorites, Germany's "Reform" in 1924, under French and Belgian military occupation, that banned jury trials and replaced them with political judges—which Germany still uses, and Germans apparently have no problem with. But, hey, they got clean energy right? Who needs jury trials when you have short-term politcally-appointed judges? LOL.) Int21h (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guns in Homes / Housing Projects[edit]

Working on a related article and might link to this one, but I have two questions:

1. If the Gun-Free School Zones Act (from the lead) "prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a 'school zone'" (emphasis mine), how do schools legally have armed resource officers?

2. Why is there a subsection on this page titled "Guns in homes"?

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I assume you are referring to 18 USC 922(q)(2). Your answer is provided in 18 USC 922(q)(2), which is right below your quotation. Does that answer your question?
2. Because it concerns the Gun-Free School Zones Act, specifically the "within a school zone" issue. There can be many things within 1000 feet of a school, including, wait for it...... homes. Right? Can't they?
The gist of the matter is that it seems to imply that federal law bars possession, even within your home, of a gun, if your home is within the proscribed area. I think that is important. I think its one of those cases of "I read the other 300,000 sections of state law and the United States Code, but I never got to 18 USC 922 before I got arrested for my Ak-47" situations. Also fucked up is that this took place in Puerto Rico, where, AFAIK, they do not teach English very well, and certainly not well enough to read and understand the United States Code. And that's assuming you are willing to read consecutive sentences, which, I think we can agree, everyone is not.
Just imagine: what if the government builds a school every 1000 feet, or expands the distance to 100,000 feet? Int21h (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, I think the lead needs to be updated to reflect that unauthorized individuals are prohibited yada-yada-yada... and there probably ought to be some WP:RS explanatory text in the "Guns in home subsection," since I am probably not the only reader to wonder why said section is included. Lightbreather (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Not it. Int21h (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this went without saying, but the 1st Circuit is a reliable source. Int21h (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, I just noticed this, a housing project is not "private property" and is not covered by the exception for "private property not part of school grounds". Int21h (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm letting the Guns-in-home thing go, but that lead really needed to be corrected. I'm cool now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but its relevant. I think it should be rolled up as a single sentence next to the private property exception, not a subsection, but the way the article is currently set up, relevant information about each clause must be in a separate subsection.
And yes, it needed (still needs?) cleanup, summarization, and sources. But I was exhausted just trying to figure where the hell this law came from and what its name was (and finding clear, reliable sources saying as much). Int21h (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section on guns in "homes" or "housing projects" or whatever we want to call them is very relevant because it shows that GFSZA has current court precedent that seemingly contrasts with the DC Heller decision about guns in homes. Whether Nieves-Castano, could have been acquitted of GFSZA based on the constitutional precedent set by the Heller Decision is a currently unresolved issue. In the Heller Decision SCOTUS mentioned that their decision should not cast doubt on the prohibition of guns in schools. Whether SCOTUS feels the 1000 foot radius around schools is constitutional, and if so, whether that radius should also apply in the private space of public housing projects, is still an unresolved issue. I personally think it is unfair to say that her apartment was not her "home." I imagine she and her two children considered the apartment their home. However, if the word "home" is not used in reference to the Nieves-Castano case, the distinction should be made that she possessed the firearm in what was a purely private, not public, part of the housing project. Although legally irrelevant for Fed GFSZA, I would also point out that her apartment, while not privately owned, would still fall under the "Castle Doctrine" of many states (and possibly Puerto Rico if it has Castle Doctrine?).
Also, the gun being fully automatic has no legal relevance in relation to GFSZA. While it may or may not have been relevant in the US attorney's personal decision to prosecute, it is irrelevant from a legal perspective, and the Nieves-Castano case sets precedent for all guns in public housing projects, no matter their type or otherwise legal condition. If the fact that she possessed an unregistered full auto is included in the article, the article should also include the fact that she was acquitted of the machine gun charge. Had she not violated GFSZA by having a gun within 1000 feet of several schools, she would not have been criminally liable for anything in this case. The court ruled that her possession of the full auto was, by itself, not a crime. Under a strict legal interpretation, Nieves-Castano was in fact convicted under Fed GFSZA for possessing in her home, what was for her, a perfectly legal firearm. --MoonOwl2010 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preserving overkill sources[edit]

These were all cited repeatedly throughout the article. I am preserving them here. Considering their quality, I will probably just keep 1 or 2.

  • Wisconsin Carry (17 February 2014). "CCL Reciprocity: Warning to those who travel and carry". Wisconsin Carry. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
  • Oklahoma Second Amendment Association (2013). "Federal Gun Free School Zones Act". Oklahoma Second Amendment Association. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
  • Benedict, Ashan (July 2013). "Letter from ATF to Oklahoma Second Amendment Association" (PDF). handgunlaw.us. Retrieved 22 February 2014.
  • Wolf, Bonzer (January 21, 2014). "ATF Says that Millions of Americans are Violating the Gun Free School Zone Act". Bonzer Wolf. Retrieved 22 February 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions upheld / overturned[edit]

The text of the "Challenges" section states that certain convictions were upheld following the revision to the law. However, this is incorrect for Smith, which was a sentencing appeal -- the conviction itself was not appealed. Also, several cases upheld convictions based on procedural issues, not on the substance of the law: Weekes (fairness of trial appeal), Benally (fairness appeal), and Cruz-Rodriguez (appeal on sufficiency of evidence and sentencing). Including these cases in a section on challenges to the law's substance is misleading.

The text of the "Challenges" section states that certain convictions were overturned following the revision to the law. However, this is incorrect for Tait, which was an appeal on a successful motion to dismiss -- Tait was never convicted in the first place. Also, the Guzman-Montanez affirm-in-part and reversal-in-part did not challenge the substance of the law, it was an appeal based on sufficiency of evidence (see [4]). Including these cases in a section on challenges to the law's substance is misleading.

I could probably find a dozen cases that /cite/ to GFSZA, both where convictions were upheld and where they were overturned, but that's irrelevant to showing that the law's substance has held up under direct challenges. The text about Dorsey is fine, but the rest is of questionable value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:6900:395:80C4:BE1D:3E5C:3DCF (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting/Indentation needed[edit]

The Provisions section quotes some legal text, but the text isn't formatted---in particular isn't indented---so as to indicate the logical structure of the text. Anyone who knows how to do this easily, please do it. Thanks if you can help.CountMacula (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CountMacula: Actually, the text *is* formatted with indentations. Or at least, it is when I look at it. (I'm using a computer, as opposed to a phone or tablet, with Windows and Firefox.) If you edit the text, you'll see it uses the {{Quote}} template, which I believe is what's recommended for these situations. However, for articles about laws, it's generally preferable not to include long quotes from the law. Instead it's better to paraphrase the law into regular prose. — Mudwater (Talk) 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using FF or Chrome on a laptop, for me it's all indented at the same level: Items (i), (ii), and (iii) are indented the same amount as items (I) and (II).CountMacula (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate paragraph[edit]

In the History and Challenges sections, there are paragraphs that are nearly identical. I'm not sure which one the paragraph is more relevant to JackSitilides (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990&oldid=1207483499"