626.9 Clarification

flyingm · Apr 26, 2008

imported post

I have spent a lot of time searching this site in preparation for my first OC outing. It seems that the one thing holding me back is section 626 of the penal code. My residence is located in a school zone and the surrounding areas seem to be riddled with them from what I see driving around. I was hoping someone would be able to help me in my understanding of what constitutes a "School Zone". Per section 626.9 (e):

Code:

(1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public
or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1
to 12, inclusive,  or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the
grounds of the public or private school.

Does this include tutoring facilities like Sylvann and the like? What about a church with a Sunday school program? What about "Special Needs" facilities? I think that its the "providing instruction in" part of the code that is causing my confusion. Does it only mean generally accepted k-12 curriculium being taught persuant to the local School District or is it broader than that? I would very much like to hear other's thoughts on this.

Decoligny · Apr 26, 2008

imported post

OCOC wrote:

Code:
I have spent a lot of time searching this site in preparation for my first OC outing. It seems that the one thing holding me back is section 626 of the penal code. My residence is located in a school zone and the surrounding areas seem to be riddled with them from what I see driving around. I was hoping someone would be able to help me in my understanding of what constitutes a "School Zone". Per section 626.9 (e):

Code:

(1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.

Does this include tutoring facilities like Sylvann and the like? What about a church with a Sunday school program? What about "Special Needs" facilities? I think that its the "providing instruction in" part of the code that is causing my confusion. Does it only mean generally accepted k-12 curriculium being taught persuant to the local School District or is it broader than that? I would very much like to hear other's thoughts on this.

I think the applicable portion that you should be looking at is where it says "knows, or reasonably should know". If any average Joe would be able to tell, "That's a K-12 school!" then you should reasonably know, and it's an area to avoid. If someone is homeschooling their kids, their home istechnically is a school zone. A reasonable person would not be expected to know that Jim Smith at 421 Primrose Lane is homeschooling his kids.

ConditionThree · Apr 27, 2008

imported post

This is where its beneficial to read the law from the begininng of the chapter.

626. (a) As used in this chapter, the following definitions apply:

(4) "School" means any elementary school, junior high school,
four-year high school, senior high school, adult school or any branch
thereof, opportunity school, continuation high school, regional
occupational center, evening high school, or technical school or any
public right-of-way situated immediately adjacent to school property
or any other place if a teacher and one or more pupils are required
to be at that place in connection with assigned school activities.

Sylvan, or any other tutoring services really dont fall under this definition, as this form of education is not 'required'... but as Decoligny has pointed out, if you are not reasonably aware that there are students and teachers are present- as with the homeschooling example, you arent in violation of 626.9

The other thing that hasnt been adequately explored is that 626.9 only has force on public property within 1000 feet of a school campus.

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.

So, let's say Sylvan WAS considered a school by definition, and the school zone was considered from theedge of their business property. You could be lawfully armed at the strip mall next door or across the street from the learning center, provided you were in compliance with the unloaded, secured in alocked case requirement while in possessionon public property. You see, this law doesnt govern your activities on the strip malls private property.

All statements herein are the opinion of the author and are not to be considered legal advice.

CA_Libertarian · Apr 27, 2008

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

The other thing that hasnt been adequately explored is that 626.9 only has force on public property within 1000 feet of a school campus.

If People v Overturf is still standing case law, then carrying a loaded firearm in any place that is public access - including your place of business and your front yard - is a 'public place' as far as 12031 is concerned.

Note that the court differentiated between 'possessing' and 'carrying' of firearms. It's truly insananity, so stop reading if you have no tolerance for complete idoicy.

"Carrying" and "having" are not synonymous. "Having" relates to an "act or state of possessing," Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, page 1145, while "carrying" refers to the "act or instance of carrying" and the verb "carry" in relevant definition connotes "to convey, or transport ...;" and "to transfer from one place ... to another." (Id. at p. 412.) There is a distinct difference in the two concepts. Speaking generally in the context of statutes concerned with firearms, "carry" or "carrying" has been said to be used in the sense of holding or bearing arms. (In re Bergen (1923) 61 Cal.App. 226, 228 [214 P. 521]; People v. Smith (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d Supp. 875, 878 [164 P.2d 857]. fn. 2 We think that "having," as it appears in subdivisions (f) and (j) of section 12031, is to be read in the sense of "owning, possessing, or keeping," and we so hold for three reasons:

...

So, once you load your firearm in a place exempted by subection (f) the firearm cannot be carried, only possessed in a stationary manner (e.g. sitting under the counter).

As stupid as this sounds, to my knowledge, this manure is standing case law.

ETA: I just noticed that the quote is incorrect in it's quoting of subsections. The case law refers to subsection (f) and then quotes (h). My guess is that since the decision the law has been revised and they changed subsections around. So, in all above references to subsection (f) the correct subsection being referenced is (h).

Code:

(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a  loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of  residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

It is also important to note that subsection (l) uses the same language as (h): "having." Following this court's logic, if you're somehow caught "carrying" a loaded weapon in your home it is prohibited under this statute. Of course, it would be a pretty rare circumstance that any LEO would be able to procure admissible evidence proving that you carry a loaded firearm in your home.

flyingm · Apr 28, 2008

imported post

Sylvan, or any other tutoring services really dont fall under this definition, as this form of education is not 'required'... but as Decoligny has pointed out, if you are not reasonably aware that there are students and teachers are present- as with the homeschooling example, you arent in violation of 626.9

This is my line of thinking as well. I guess that I just wanted to make sure others saw it the same way as I do.

626.9 Clarification

flyingm

New member

Decoligny

Regular Member

ConditionThree

State Pioneer

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher

flyingm

New member