Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Long guns allowed in school zones?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    CA Penal Code 626.9 reads:

    a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
    Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
    (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
    knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
    permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
    designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
    specified in subdivision (f).
    (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.
    (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.

    (3) When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes
    that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming
    the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against
    another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat
    to his or her life or safety. This subdivision may not apply when
    the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant
    to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code
    absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or
    safety. Upon a trial for violating subdivision (b), the trier of a
    fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a
    reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.
    (4) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against
    carrying a concealed firearm pursuant to subdivision (b), (d), (e),
    or (h) of Section 12027.
    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    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.
    Read (c)(2) again and tell me what it says.

    Remember the distinction between "section", "subdivision", and "paragraph".

    Note that (c)(2) does not exempt "possession" of long guns in school zones, thus not contradicting (b). It merely allows for transportation if otherwise in accordance with state law. Thus one may be prosecuted under 626.9 for possession of a long gun in a school zone if one is either A: not traveling anywhere or B: in violation of any other code. The law doesn't seem to contradict itself if interpreted this way, and this analysis is the only way I can reconcile (c)(2) with (b).

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Good point on the transportation vs. possession aspect. The entire law is ridiculous at this point since if a person really wanted to shoot a bunch of kids (presumably that is what the law is supposed to be doing) then you wouldn't bring an uzi or a pistol, you'd bring an assault rifle. You'd never be able to hit too many kids without going onto school property (and hence violating that law) with a concealable weapon. And since assault rifles are practically illegal in CA, you'd be left with a semi-automatic rifle such as an M1A, which would be totally legal to carry on the sidewalk right next to the school.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    No, it would become illegal as soon as he stopped "transporting" to shoot at the kids, thus preemptively disabling him from shooting. :P

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

    Post imported post

    Oh silly me, how easily I forget. Not to mention the variety of other laws that would be broken when he/she decided to commit mass murder such as carrying a loaded weapon and assault with a deadly weapon and brandishing. Can't forget brandishing. Oh, and then there's that whole murder thing too, but that doesn't really prevent crimes since it only comes into play after you've succeeded. And who really thinks that far ahead these days?

    ---

    Edit: 90% sarcastic

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Well, I'm not sure if that was intended to be 100% sarcastic or not, but you're right that murder laws don't prevent murder. No law can. Proactive is always better than reactive. The only way for the government to be proactive is through tyranny, and the only way for the people to be proactive is through freedom. Take your pick.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    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.
    Read (c)(2) again and tell me what it says.

    Remember the distinction between "section", "subdivision", and "paragraph".

    Note that (c)(2) does not exempt "possession" of long guns in school zones, thus not contradicting (b). It merely allows for transportation if otherwise in accordance with state law. Thus one may be prosecuted under 626.9 for possession of a long gun in a school zone if one is either A: not traveling anywhere or B: in violation of any other code. The law doesn't seem to contradict itself if interpreted this way, and this analysis is the only way I can reconcile (c)(2) with (b).
    I just posted about this in the other thread, then noticed this one...

    I was wrong, but had a feeling I might be missing something. For some reason I was misreading that sentence as being a blanket exemption for permitees and parades and such.

    It is remarkably clear (considering our legislature's ability to write clear law) that this section does not apply to long guns.
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    So the question is then, what constitutes transportation, and how might that be interpreted as mere possession?

    My hike to the gun range with my rifle would be on foot of course, and by simple man's intent, that is transportation. but you know how courts and LEO can have different interpretations as can laws that one might not be aware of

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Well, in order to "transport" one must also "possess", so it seems that "possession" must be permitted so long as you are also "transporting".

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    So the question is then, what constitutes transportation, and how might that be interpreted as mere possession?
    I'm sure if you're actually walking through the school zone and aren't just standing around that you should be fine. I'd stop and tie my shoes but I probably wouldn't stop and talk with a person.

    In fact, if a cop rolls up next to you and asks you a question, just continue walking lest you stop and then he spring an insane trap on you for no longer transporting the rifle. Now THAT would be crazy. In all seriousness though, I wouldn't even stop to talk to a cop unless he ordered me to via some detention.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    I think the reality of it is that the authors of this law understood the locked case requirements for transporting concealed handguns, but were not sure exactly what limits there were for long guns, so they threw that sentance in. The fact is, you can transport your long guns any way you want (unloaded). So you can transport them through school zones just the same. Now I have heard that there is a federal school zone law though, that requires long guns be trigger-locked or rack-locked. I don't know the specifics though, nor if the federal law even has the ridiculous 1000 foot language.



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

    Post imported post

    Wow, good call MudCamper:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

    Code:
    (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.
    That's retarded.

    It should be noted that the article says the law was rejected as unconstitutional by the courts and then reenacted in 1996 with nearly the same wording. More info here: http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I think post Heller, this law can be easily challenged.
    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.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    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.

    That's the part I don't get.

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

    Post imported post

    Furthermore, wouldn't a California hunting license then qualify you for this exemption?


    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;

    Breaking this down a bit, a hunting license is issued by the state department of fish and game, a law enforcement agency, and they do require a hunters safety course to obtain a license

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    *
    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.
    *

    That's the part I don't get.
    The reason for this is that the first time this law was passed, the SCOTUS decided for basically the first (and so far last) time in history to limit the authority provided by the commerce clause, ruling the law unconstitutional because it is effectively criminal legislation which should be left up to the states, and has nothing to do with commerce. So the legislature passed it again with that silly bit about "otherwise affects interstate commerce", in order to once again assert authority they don't have under the commerce clause.

    However the law won't stand. I'm not sure if it's ever used outside of "sentence enhancement" threats to obtain plea bargains, but, contrary to the claims of the wikipedia page, the new version does not "[correct] the technical defects identified by the Court by adding section 3(A)", because the SCOTUS decision (which is standing precedent) that overturned the original stated that the law exceeded the authority provided by the commerce clause regardless of whether guns affect interstate commerce.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    So I can safely thumb my nose at this on then:?

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Not in California.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    Not in California.
    What about long guns? CA statutes don't prohibit having a long gun in a school zone...

    Anybody got an extra $250,000 and want their name enshrined in the law books?
    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.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    Not in California.
    What about long guns?* CA statutes don't prohibit having a long gun in a school zone...
    lol, that is the topic of this thread, isn't it? Dang, you got me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    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.
    Read (c)(2) again and tell me what it says.

    Remember the distinction between "section", "subdivision", and "paragraph".

    Note that (c)(2) does not exempt "possession" of long guns in school zones, thus not contradicting (b). It merely allows for transportation if otherwise in accordance with state law. Thus one may be prosecuted under 626.9 for possession of a long gun in a school zone if one is either A: not traveling anywhere or B: in violation of any other code. The law doesn't seem to contradict itself if interpreted this way, and this analysis is the only way I can reconcile (c)(2) with (b).
    Well what do you make of this "other firearm capable of being concealed on the person,"?

    It is my understanding that this means rifles and shotguns, same as in the CA AGO's website.


  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    It is my understanding that this means rifles and shotguns, same as in the CA AGO's website.
    Cite, please.

  23. #23
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    KS_to_CA wrote:
    Well what do you make of this "other firearm capable of being concealed on the person,"?
    "Other..." in CA means a firearm with a barrel of 16" or less.

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=12000-12003

    12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
    "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
    shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
    weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
    explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
    than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that
    has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be
    interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
    (2) As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol,"
    "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."
    (b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to
    be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a
    projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.



  24. #24
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Yeah, cite and then post pictures of you carrying a rifle on your person without us being able to tell it's there.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    California Penal Code Section 12001

    (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
    "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
    shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
    weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
    explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
    than 16 inches in length
    .
    Edit: Darn cato beat me to it in an edit by 5 minutes. :P

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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