Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: School zone and ccw

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redding, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Not being a ccw holder I have a question. Has there been any case law pertaining to a ccw holder transporting an unlocked rifle or shotgun through a school zone? Iinterpret that a ccw allowsthe holderto be an exception and carry in/out of vehicle loaded/unloaded in a school zone. But, a rifle or shotgun has to be carried unloadedand lockedat all times within 1000 ft. Am I correct? I hate to assume anything, I figure a case law link, if existing would clarify this for me.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, California, USA
    Posts
    22

    Post imported post

    I'm not aware of any case law applying to "CCWs,",school zones and long guns. In California a license to carry concealed firearm only applies to the firearms listed on the license, so my belief would be that it wouldn't make any difference WRT long guns.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1

    Post imported post

    If you carefully read the CA and federal statute you can see that unloaded carry of long guns is not restricted in CA school zone law for legal purposes - so no case is needed.

    The federal law does require a case unless you have a license to possess - the best exception is guns made in California or antiques. A security guard gun card is probably the best license. This federal law might be invalid under DC v. Heller now.

  4. #4
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    The federal law does require a case

    lockable gun racks, like those in police car, are also an exemption



  5. #5
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    Doug Beevers wrote:
    The federal law does require a case unless you have a license to possess - the best exception is guns made in California or antiques. A security guard gun card is probably the best license. This federal law might be invalid under DC v. Heller now.




    I think its been invalid since U.S. vs. Lopez, but congress somehow thought by changing the wording to claim that they have authority to regulate it that it was suddenly legitimate.

    I wouldn't want to be the test case, but I somewhat doubt if the feds can get a conviction with it.


    Here's an article I found about its constitutionality. http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.p...+L.+J.+637+pdf

    Also look at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez


    If the law was enforceable, technically, because in the wording of the law congress DECLARES that all guns have been through interstate commerce, thefaulty logicwould lead to you being guilty even if your gun was made in your own state. The current version of the law makes "declarations" where congress says "it is so because we say it is." According to congress, its an impossibility that a gun could originate entirely from one state. It also says that if your gun has ever gone through interstate commerce then by possessing it in a school zone you are affecting commerce. It's a bunch of bull-oney. Try looking up the actual text text itself. The wording is quite rediculous. It's Title 18 Section 922 (Q)





Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •