ConditionThree
State Pioneer
imported post
A laymen’s examination of PC626.9 and 626.95
Most gun owners are aware of California’s 1000-foot gun free school zone rule. Since it has come up in other venues as a reason it’s not practical to open carry, I thought I’d synopsize it according to my understanding of the code. In keeping it germane to OC, I have not addressed exemptions that do not apply to regular folks- that are not peace officers, security guards, licensees, or have filed a TRO against a person they fear.
Lawful possession of firearms in a place of residence, place of business or private property. I believe it is significant to note, the law is not specific as to who controls the residence, business or private property. Bear in mind-I’m not an attorney but, by my interpretation, a person carrying an exposed weapon could patronize a convenience store directly next to a school or visit a friend’s residence near a school without violating the law, provided their weapon was transported in a locked case or locked in a vehicle’s trunk while on public streets or property in the 1000 foot ‘school zone’.
Unloaded concealable firearms locked in a case or inside a trunk. This is more or less an extension or mirror of PC12026.1 exemptions. This makes it possible to travel in a school zone with your firearm without violating the school zone prohibition.
So in utilizing these two exemptions, people are not stuck with navigating around school zones they are aware of, or having to make a u-turn when they inadvertently enter a school zone. With the pistol or revolver unloaded and locked in a case, they can travel wherever they need to- and once at their destination can holster their weapon in discharge-prohibited areas or load and holster their weapon when they are in unincorporated areas where discharge is not prohibited. Granted, this isn’t nearly as convenient as loading and holstering your firearm as you get ready to go about your business, but it is what we have to work with.
Now, a concern about home schools has arisen. It has been asserted that home schools are actually considered ‘private schools’ in the educational code and that the 1000-foot rule applies to where home schools are conducted, presumably in residences. This is where the ‘reasonable knowledge’ text of the law comes into play. Without possessing all the aspects of a regular school—the building, the signs indicating “school zone”, crosswalks indicating parent and child crossing, school busses entering and leaving, students entering and leaving, crossing guards, playground equipment, et al; it is impossible to know what residences conduct home schooling and which do not. Even if a person who was openly armed was detained by police in front of a residence that did home school their K-12 children, it would be very difficult for the State to prove a person could reasonably know the area was a school zone, when police themselves cannot make the distinction.
Now as if disarming lawful gun owners in public near schools and on school grounds wasn’t enough, they go a step further to appear to protect the children who are not in a ‘school zone’.
Another interesting point is that the code ‘encourages’ State and local authorities to post warnings of the prohibitions on weapons in parks or near youth centers, when in reality 626.95 does not expressly forbid firearms in those locations by those who have not violated PC417, PC12025, or PC12031. This is an excellent example where ‘color of law’ is being used to give the illusion of a gun ban, where there isn’t one.
A laymen’s examination of PC626.9 and 626.95
Most gun owners are aware of California’s 1000-foot gun free school zone rule. Since it has come up in other venues as a reason it’s not practical to open carry, I thought I’d synopsize it according to my understanding of the code. In keeping it germane to OC, I have not addressed exemptions that do not apply to regular folks- that are not peace officers, security guards, licensees, or have filed a TRO against a person they fear.
This according to the list of exemptions does not apply to;
Lawful possession of firearms in a place of residence, place of business or private property. I believe it is significant to note, the law is not specific as to who controls the residence, business or private property. Bear in mind-I’m not an attorney but, by my interpretation, a person carrying an exposed weapon could patronize a convenience store directly next to a school or visit a friend’s residence near a school without violating the law, provided their weapon was transported in a locked case or locked in a vehicle’s trunk while on public streets or property in the 1000 foot ‘school zone’.
Unloaded concealable firearms locked in a case or inside a trunk. This is more or less an extension or mirror of PC12026.1 exemptions. This makes it possible to travel in a school zone with your firearm without violating the school zone prohibition.
So in utilizing these two exemptions, people are not stuck with navigating around school zones they are aware of, or having to make a u-turn when they inadvertently enter a school zone. With the pistol or revolver unloaded and locked in a case, they can travel wherever they need to- and once at their destination can holster their weapon in discharge-prohibited areas or load and holster their weapon when they are in unincorporated areas where discharge is not prohibited. Granted, this isn’t nearly as convenient as loading and holstering your firearm as you get ready to go about your business, but it is what we have to work with.
Now, a concern about home schools has arisen. It has been asserted that home schools are actually considered ‘private schools’ in the educational code and that the 1000-foot rule applies to where home schools are conducted, presumably in residences. This is where the ‘reasonable knowledge’ text of the law comes into play. Without possessing all the aspects of a regular school—the building, the signs indicating “school zone”, crosswalks indicating parent and child crossing, school busses entering and leaving, students entering and leaving, crossing guards, playground equipment, et al; it is impossible to know what residences conduct home schooling and which do not. Even if a person who was openly armed was detained by police in front of a residence that did home school their K-12 children, it would be very difficult for the State to prove a person could reasonably know the area was a school zone, when police themselves cannot make the distinction.
Now as if disarming lawful gun owners in public near schools and on school grounds wasn’t enough, they go a step further to appear to protect the children who are not in a ‘school zone’.
It would be easy for some to say that 626.9 bans possession of firearms anywhere near places like a city park with a playground, a little league baseball game, a daycare, a McDonald’s Playplace, or a Chuck E Cheese’s. This isn’t the case at all. If you read the law carefully, the prohibition is an enhancement to violations of PC417 (brandishing), PC12025 (concealed firearms), or PC12030 (loaded firearm).
Another interesting point is that the code ‘encourages’ State and local authorities to post warnings of the prohibitions on weapons in parks or near youth centers, when in reality 626.95 does not expressly forbid firearms in those locations by those who have not violated PC417, PC12025, or PC12031. This is an excellent example where ‘color of law’ is being used to give the illusion of a gun ban, where there isn’t one.