Talk:Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

message: 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)
thread_title: Guns On College Campuses; New Reception Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Effects Section

message: 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)
thread_title: Article Implies Certain Constitutionality

message: 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  & --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual text

message: (rv. )
I've looked around and can't seem to figure it out.
Thanks.
--NDM 07:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain meaning of this command.

message: There is lots of criticisms of the concept of "gun free zones" - sadly vindicated yesterday IMO :( AbstractClass 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This article needs a criticism section.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Went ahead and added "Template:Fact" request to the aforementioned sentence. --Shooter tx 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up Legislation?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title: Purpose

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 judgeswhich 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)
thread_title: History

message: These were all cited repeatedly throughout the article. I am preserving them here. Considering their quality, I will probably just keep 1 or 2.
*
*
*
*
--Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preserving overkill sources 

message: 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 ).  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)
thread_title:  Convictions upheld / overturned 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ee/United_States_vs_Dorsey_gfsza95.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301072720/http://ok2a.org/fedgfsza to http://ok2a.org/fedgfsza
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712152415/http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html to http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719130417/http://opencarry.org/travel.html to http://opencarry.org/travel.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719123400/http://opencarry.org/constcarry.html to http://opencarry.org/constcarry.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting/Indentation needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Duplicate paragraph