Movealongmovealong
Sharpshooter
Here is the relevant code:
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm -
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is -
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is
on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.
From the appearance of this, the ATF official who told you the locked container requirement was incorrect, insofar as it pertains to the private property in and around Rural King. However, as soon as you move onto public land (e.g. the roadway), you could be in violation of federal law (if, for instance, you didn't have a permit to carry). Of course, it would be up to a federal officer to catch a person doing so, because it wouldn't be a violation of state law in IN, so that ATF agent was stretching his legal authority in that respect.
Sounds to me like the ATF agent was just trying to simplify the matter to something that could be applied consistently and easily.
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to
possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual
knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
firearm -
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do
so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or
political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains
such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or
political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified
under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is -
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is
on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school
in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official
capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while
traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to
public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school
premises is authorized by school authorities.
From the appearance of this, the ATF official who told you the locked container requirement was incorrect, insofar as it pertains to the private property in and around Rural King. However, as soon as you move onto public land (e.g. the roadway), you could be in violation of federal law (if, for instance, you didn't have a permit to carry). Of course, it would be up to a federal officer to catch a person doing so, because it wouldn't be a violation of state law in IN, so that ATF agent was stretching his legal authority in that respect.
Sounds to me like the ATF agent was just trying to simplify the matter to something that could be applied consistently and easily.
