Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: School Zone Firearm Law Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galt, CA, ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Hi guys, newcomer to OC here. I've been lurking for weeks and I'm pretty muchclear on the laws, but I have some questions.

    If I want to UOC within a1000' of a schoolbut in a store and on the stores parking lot, is that ok? I know it's okay to OC on pricate property, but how can you tell if the shopping center parking lot is private property?

    Another question. So I work for the school district in my city in CA. Can I obtain writtenpermission from say the superintendent of the district and be except from "school zone" firearms laws, federal and state, for the schools in that district? Here's the part I'm talking about:

    v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and theindividual or an employer of the individual;






  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    You can get written permission from "the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority" and be exempt from the restriction.

    You can also carry if you meet this circumstance:

    (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.


    I actually never knew that you could carry on private property like a store even if it was right next to a school. That's fairly cool. Just stay off the sidewalks.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    If you do not work for the store, then at some point you must carry within the 1000' zone....so, no go.

    Carry on private property as an employee with permission from the property owner (in this case, inside the store, NOT the parking lot), is legal and allowed. However, this does not allow you to carry outside the store at all, unless you are thwarting a crime.

    Being a school district employee does not exempt you from the law. Permission to carry on school property is usually only for demonstration purposes, and not self defense.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galt, CA, ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    Iwork night times after school hours when no kids are there. I'm a part-time janitor. It would be cool to be able to UOC to protect myself. In fact, there was another janitor who got robbed at a nearby school, just a few days ago. But actually, I was just looking for a workaround so I could UOC on public areas near schools, not on school grounds. Because honestly, there's 2 schools within 1000' of the main strip. Theres only one shopping center I can OC at and its on the other side of town andI never even go there for anything.Half myneighborhood is within 1000' of a school, but luckily I live in the half that's not. I asked a cop about the 1000' law and he hadn't even heard about it. This law seems like it'sjust in place to annoy lawful gun owners. How the hell did it get passed? And how can I get around it?



  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I'm definitely going to go with Army that you have an EXTREMELY small chance of getting permission to carry on school grounds.

    Still not sure about carrying within 1000' in a private parking lot. My reading tells me it is fine but my common sense tells me that a cop wouldn't buy my reasoning.

  6. #6
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Still not sure about carrying within 1000' in a private parking lot. My reading tells me it is fine but my common sense tells me that a cop wouldn't buy my reasoning.
    Its called a 'test case' scenario. By strict reading of the law, it is not a violation. Doesnt mean you wouldnt get arrested by those applying the law- and could require considerable legal defense measures.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Dessun wrote:
    Hi guys, newcomer to OC here. I've been lurking for weeks and I'm pretty muchclear on the laws, but I have some questions.

    If I want to UOC within a1000' of a schoolbut in a store and on the stores parking lot, is that ok? I know it's okay to OC on pricate property, but how can you tell if the shopping center parking lot is private property?

    Snip


    Dessun,
    Depending upon the County you are in, you can check the County Assessor's Parcel Maps either online or in person at the County Assessor's Office. Try to find the parcel upon which the shopping center is located. This will usually help you see the extent of the boundaries of the shopping center vs. the public right-of-way(road and sidewalks).
    Here's the bad part, short of a survey, it can often be very difficult to know where property lines are. Most of the time, sidewalks are on City/County/State property but sometimes they are not. Most of the time, shopping center parking lots are private property, but sometimes the parking and landscaped areas extend into the public right-of-way.
    Within the context of this discussion, I'm neither advocating for or against your OC'ing in private lots within 1000' the school zone. But if you do, stay away from the edges of the lot nearest the streets. You may not know if you have inadvertantly crossed into public property. Technical I know, but CA is a minefield. We can't afford to lose OC supporters.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I am unclear on the 1000 foot law as it would apply to rifles and shotguns. Putting one of those in a locked container seems ridiculous, and the law itself seems tailored to handguns. So do you have to lock up your rifle in a box too, and then how does all that work if you are not in a car, but on foot?

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    The law says FIREARM...NOT simply handgun.

    Technically, under the law an AR-15 stripped lower is a firearm and can result in a 626.9 felony charge.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    I am unclear on the 1000 foot law as it would apply to rifles and shotguns. Putting one of those in a locked container seems ridiculous, and the law itself seems tailored to handguns. So do you have to lock up your rifle in a box too, and then how does all that work if you are not in a car, but on foot?
    The law states, that if you have "reasonable knowledge" of a school zone, then ALL firearms must be in a locked container.

    Strange town, unknown school zones, the law cannot be used against you as you could not have "reasonable knowledge".

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Great noob question! And welcome.

    Funny you should ask about this. I was thinking about the private property exemption for 626.9 PC just today at about 10 am as I ate in a diner acrossfrom a school.

    This is only my opinion and 626.9 being a felony I would not recommendknowingly testing it just yet so extreme caution is urged. A simple retainer for an attorney in a felony case is $10,000 (and that is just of starters).

    That said IMO you are correct that 626.9 doesn't apply to any private property. A supermarket parking lot is still private property even though it is in CA a "public place". I think those are separate distinctions.

    Written permission from the superintendentpursuant tothe statue is an exemption from the possession prohibition. Be warned that even asking for that permission may result in your termination, considering the general paranoia and hostilityofschool employees towardguns,unless the super. is your very good drinking buddy.

    Being the night janitor, and UOCing at private businesses in the area during the police graveyard shift is quite the calculated risk. Some officers enjoy working "graveyard" because everything moving is "guilty". "Normal" people are at home sleeping. Just be aware of the risks.

    I would not suggest "knowingly"possessing in a 626.9 zone unless it was unloaded locked in a case pursuant to the laws exemption. Keep reading the laws and perhaps try UOC in non 626.9 zones first.

    Don't forget a audio or video recorder, and friendly witnesses and our brochures from californiaopencarry.org along with your FULL knowledge of the statutes are a MUST to put yourself in the best position to deal with any legal issues. Don't be a Darwin arrest! And read the entire CA forum and all the actual PC codes! (I know that's alot)

    Whether or not long arms are affected by 626.9 is an interesting discussion so I'll wait for that thread.



  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    The law says FIREARM...NOT simply handgun.

    Technically, under the law an AR-15 stripped lower is a firearm and can result in a 626.9 felony charge.
    Code:
    626.9
     (c) Subdivision (b)  does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
     (2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
    firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
    container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
     This section  does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
    transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
    accordance with state law.
    Doesn't that second paragraph in 626.9(c)(2) mean that 626.9 doesn't apply to firearms other than pistols, revolvers, and concealable guns? I would think 626.9 is the "section," so I can't imagine another interpretation of it.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    The law says FIREARM...NOT simply handgun.

    Technically, under the law an AR-15 stripped lower is a firearm and can result in a 626.9 felony charge.
    Code:
    626.9
     (c) Subdivision (b)  does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
     (2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
    firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
    container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
     This section  does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
    transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
    accordance with state law.
    Doesn't that second paragraph in 626.9(c)(2) mean that 626.9 doesn't apply to firearms other than pistols, revolvers, and concealable guns? I would think 626.9 is the "section," so I can't imagine another interpretation of it.
    Yeah, I forget that part...

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Theseus wrote:
    The law says FIREARM...NOT simply handgun.

    Technically, under the law an AR-15 stripped lower is a firearm and can result in a 626.9 felony charge.
    Code:
    626.9
     (c) Subdivision (b)  does not apply to the possession of a firearm
    under any of the following circumstances:
     (2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
    firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
    container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
     This section  does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
    transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
    accordance with state law.
    Doesn't that second paragraph in 626.9(c)(2) mean that 626.9 doesn't apply to firearms other than pistols, revolvers, and concealable guns? I would think 626.9 is the "section," so I can't imagine another interpretation of it.
    I think Cato is right: this should be the topic of a new thread; I'll make that thread right now.

    Damn forum ate my post... and I don't have time to re-create it right now... grrr...
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    This was my thought also,

    It seemed to address a concealable firearm, and not longuns. makes little sense, but then many laws only make sense to a few people.



  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I don't see anything indicating the wording from 626.9 does not apply to long guns. It says "a firearm." Logically, that means any/all firearms. The exemption in (c)(2) does specifically name concealable firearms.

    So, did the legislature intend to completely ban all long guns in school zones, without exception? Or did the legislature intend to only address concealable weapons?

    I've never seen or heard of a test case for this, so this may very well be unsettled law. This may be a great way to challenge the statute, as this could easily be construed as making it impossible to transport non-concealable firearms through a school zone.

    So, if you live in a school zone, you would only be allowed to transport short guns to your home. If a school was built within 1,000' of your home, there would be no legal way to remove the long guns from your home.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    While the law may not specifically say "long guns" or "rifles," it does say:

    This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
    transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
    accordance with state law.

    So clearly (to me at least) firearms other than pistols, revolvers, and firearms one can conceal upon their person are not affected by 626.9.

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    While the law may not specifically say "long guns" or "rifles," it does say:

    This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
    transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
    or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
    accordance with state law.

    So clearly (to me at least) firearms other than pistols, revolvers, and firearms one can conceal upon their person are not affected by 626.9.
    I misread that part... several times. I think you're right. (And for once I'm glad I was wrong!)

    So, the law actually encourages the carrying of long guns by making fewer restrictions on long guns. I may have to switch to carrying my mini14.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I'm going to look into this a little more. I can't imagine why the legislature thought it would be sensible to ban one type of firearm and not another if the whole purpose was to make a protective bubble of sorts around schools. But then again, it is California lawmakers we're talking about

Posting Permissions

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