Hello again everyone. Welcome to Washington Gun Law tv. I'm Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Hey, we're going to talk about gun-free zones. Again, we know they're a huge problem, but of course, according to the data, the problem is for everybody that's actually inside the gun-free zone. Now, you may not realize this, but federal law goes way, way beyond what your state likely does when you think of a gun-free zone. You were thinking of an actual facility in that property, the property of the courthouse, the property of the correctional facility. But what a lot of people don't know is that federal law actually extends that gun-free zone for a thousand yards in every direction from what would normally be a restricted area. Now you sit there and you go, listen, there's very little historical support to even justified gun-free zones. True? Well, what happens if there's a thousand foot buffer zone? Is there any historical tradition that would support that? Of course there isn't, and it's got a brief that's kicking around a brief that I'm pretty impressed with, and I think this could be the beginning of the end for some things. And more importantly, I think they've taken a very intelligent approach. They're going to go in this thing with a scalpel rather than with a shotgun. So today, let's spend a few minutes, let's geek out on the brief and let's talk about how to start ending gun-free zones.
Okay, America, this is the case we are talking about today. We are talking about the case of United States of America versus Ahmed Abdullah alarm. This is a case that is filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Now, there are several named plaintiffs in that, including the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Second Amendment Foundation, and this memorandum of authorities is authored by none other than Mr. Costas Morros. If you guys are not following Costas on Twitter, do yourself a favor. There it is right there. Start following 'em. Not only will you be thoroughly, thoroughly educated about Second Amendment issues, you'll also be mildly entertained as well. Kudos to Mr. Morros for this memorandum. This is a challenge to 18 United States Code section 9 22 Q2 A. And what the plaintiffs have done, and I alluded to this in the opening, is they are not challenging the constitutionality of school zones in general.
What they are challenging, however, is the constitutionality of this thousand yard buffer zone because unlike the way it works here in my state, and it probably works this way in your state, when we list a gun free zone like a school, it is the school building and the school property. And that gun free zone ends the second you step off of school property. But according to federal law, no, no, no. You have several blocks to go before you were technically out of a gun-free zone. Now, the challenge was unsuccessful at the lower court because the lower court found that this was a more modern problem that required a more nuanced approach. And of course, the historical analogs that had been brought up by the Department of Justice turned out to be relevantly similar. And so it's the old close is good enough. Here's what the Amus party, which Mr.
Morros is authoring on behalf of, has to say about this particular case. In setting up the issue, the government cannot simply proffer just any historical law that references firearms. Rather, when challenged laws regulate conduct or circumstances that already existed at the time of the founding, the absence of widespread historical laws restricting the same conduct or circumstances suggest that the founders understood the Second Amendment to preclude such regulation. In contrast, uniquely modern circumstances that did not exist at the time of the founding call for an analog analysis based on the government's proffered historical record. And so where the United States government is coming down is there's this unique problem of school shootings and where the Amika party is coming down here is, listen, we've had schools forever. We've had guns forever. We didn't have this problem until just quite recently. And for that reason, there is no historical analog that goes back and regulates the existence of guns and schools simultaneously because for most of our historical existence, no such regulations ever existed.
Now after trying to justify all of their sensitive places and the buffer zone, the United States government of course went through and used a lot of language in rahimi. Now, council does a really good job of pointing out that at least they were citing to historical analogs that go back to the founding era in Rahimi because that's a lot closer to anything that the Department of Justice came up with on this one. But ultimately, they point out the issue of sensitive places has already been addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Bruin. They specifically have said that there is a very, very narrow definition, and as the amicas counsel points out, sensitive places are narrowly defined. Under Bruin, the historical records yields relatively few 18th and 19th century sensitive places were. Weapons were all together prohibited expanding the category of sensitive places simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of sensitive places far too broadly and would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.
And the Amicas counsel points out that, listen, if you go back and you take a look at founding era law, there really is only three places that we as a society have accepted disarmament because of their sensitive nature. And those places include legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses. And that's right, schools are not one of 'em found going back in the historical analogs. Now, here's the other thing to consider, and this is a really, really good argument. If these places are so sensitive, if the people inside are so vulnerable, why are we only protecting them with just the sign? I mean, wouldn't one think if these are truly sensitive places and if these are truly sensitive people that we would probably do something more than just post the sign? Well, the Amicus Council points that out as well. Government provided security while not dispositive of whether a place is actually sensitive, at least evidences the government's honest belief that it is.
It also lessens the concern of the citizen who is temporarily giving up his right to arm self-defense because some reasonable degree of security has been provided by contrast. When the government declares a place a gun-free zone, but provides no security of its own, it both effectively admits it does not truly consider that place sensitive, but nonetheless removes the effective means of self-defense from law abiding citizens in that space. But what council is very wisely stating here is this is, Hey, listen, even if the court believes that there is a historical analog that justifies this armament while on school property, where is the historical justification for this thousand foot buffer zone? Moreover, it is unclear what historical or other basis there is for a blanket rule declaring off limits 1000 feet, no more or less as discussed below the distance, like the more recent six foot distancing requirement for pandemic mitigation based on science, no more rigorous than speculation about public acceptance seems to be grounded in little more than being a nice round number.
And truthfully, if every single school zone as well as a thousand yard perimeter was all a sensitive area, how many sensitive areas do we have? And in fact, counsel points out and they put a map in here that in the greater Dallas Fort Worth area, there is no place where you could theoretically, legally carry a firearm. Leading Amicus counsel to point out the school zones restricted by Section 9 22 Q2 A are clearly not like the White House lawn. They are so numerous and ubiquitous that the term sensitive places is meaningless if it is applied to them. Now, as the Department of Justice has been arguing is that, listen, this is a modern societal problem which was not envisioned by the founders, and that allows us to take a more nuanced approach. Amicus counsel points out that gun violence against groups or buildings is not unique, and in fact we have already taken approach, but it's quite the opposite of what DOJ is arguing here.
As they point out. If earlier generations addressed the societal problem but did so through materially different means, that could also be evidence that a modern regulation is unconstitutional. In the founding era, churches were the frequent target of violent attacks often by hostile Native American tribes. Did the founders respond to this by fooling declaring churches gun-free zones and disarming the adult congregants? No. They did the exact opposite. Founding era and pre founding era laws often required churchgoers to be armed to defend against such attacks. And they further point out faced with an increase in violent attacks at schools, the founders would've never seen disarming peaceful adults as the solution they would've allowed them or even required them to be armed to deal with any violent threats. The district court was wrong to engage in the more nuanced approach. Now, one of the big historical analogs that the Department of Justice is relying upon here is all the buffer zones that were placed around polling places An interesting argument because there were some laws to that effect.
However, when you consider how many jurisdictions were conducting elections, and then you take a look at how many of 'em actually had buffer zones, you'll realize it was a very, very small minority. But then, and this is really important, and you probably had this pop in your head right away, a buffer zone around a polling place would only exist one or two days a year during the primary of the general election. And depending on when it was used, it might only exist once every few years. Whereas a federal gun-free zone exists seven days a week, 365 days a year, including times when school is out of session. And then again, if we were really allowed this, anyone in a large congested urban area would essentially be disarmed by the Federal Gun-free zone as amicus party points out, given that many schools existed. Urban areas, this court should also consider whether school zones when considered in combination, effectively exempt cities from the amendments protections.
And while we can oftentimes understand what a gun-free zone is because it's clearly marked on that particular building, and you got to literally walk right by the sign to get into it, we don't typically mark the thousand foot perimeters surrounding these things, which of course leads to this problem. While all overbearing sensitive place restrictions are in affront to the Second Amendment, buffer zone laws are in their own special category because they can lead to accidental violations. Someone legally carrying a firearm in an urban environment will not necessarily know exactly when they have entered into a school zone. 1000 feet in every direction is quite a wide rated. He is at is the length of approximately three football fields. Okay, and then Mr. Morrow spends the last few pages of the brief dealing with a very problematic and contrary ruling out of the second circuit in the matter of Anak v Chiia mento.
And we're going to go ahead and link that up down below so that you can geek out on it for himself. But he does an excellent job of dissecting all of the fallacy in that court's reasoning and why it has no application to this particular case. Okay, the case once again is United States V Alarm. We're going to go ahead and link up the memorandum of authorities down there so that you can geek out on it for yourself. I think this case has huge potential. Again, we're never going to get gun-free zones just to crumble, but we can start eroding away at some of these. If you got any questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now. If you don't, that's okay. That information is down there in the description box.
Maybe you got an idea for a video. If you do, go ahead and click on that link right there. Maybe you want to just get our newsletter every month. If you do, there's a link down there in the description box. Click there, sign on up. And then finally, and most importantly, let's everyone remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is in every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN2fo9WfwoI
Credit: William Kirk, Washington Gun Law, Partner