Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: 626.9 loophole??

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    I know the Calguns website and members as been able to successfully come up with the terms "OLL" and NeRFs" and basically have takeen the kaiser list, and also more recently the "CA approved firearms list" out of the equation, due to the exact wording/definitions written in the laws.

    I have read 626.9 many many times, as I read it again just yesterday after viewing the San Deigo traning memo, the wording in bold below in the PC stood out to me.


    "PC § 626.9(b) – Possession on School Grounds
    This section prohibits any person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or
    reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school
    district superintendent, designee, or equivalent school authority.
    School zone: Defined as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing
    instruction in K-12
    , inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or
    private school."


    I know I have to drive within 1000' of two different schools on my way into town, one of which is a public school providing instruction in K-5, the other being a public school providing instruction in 6-8. Nither of which by definition are a public or private school providing instuction in K-12.

    Maybe Im out on a limb here, or stretching the definition alittle to far....but it seems to myself, a reasonable person, that by passing either of those two schools I would not be in what the 626.9 PC code defines as a school zone.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    camsoup wrote:
    I know the Calguns website and members as been able to successfully come up with the terms "OLL" and NeRFs" and basically have takeen the kaiser list, and also more recently the "CA approved firearms list" out of the equation, due to the exact wording/definitions written in the laws.

    I have read 626.9 many many times, as I read it again just yesterday after viewing the San Deigo traning memo, the wording in bold below in the PC stood out to me.


    "PC § 626.9(b) – Possession on School Grounds
    This section prohibits any person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or
    reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school
    district superintendent, designee, or equivalent school authority.
    School zone: Defined as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing
    instruction in K-12
    , inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or
    private school."


    I know I have to drive within 1000' of two different schools on my way into town, one of which is a public school providing instruction in K-5, the other being a public school providing instruction in 6-8. Nither of which by definition are a public or private school providing instuction in K-12.

    Maybe Im out on a limb here, or stretching the definition alittle to far....but it seems to myself, a reasonable person, that by passing either of those two schools I would not be in what the 626.9 PC code defines as a school zone.
    a public or private school providing instruction in K-12, inclusive...

    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    camsoup wrote:
    I know I have to drive within 1000' of two different schools on my way into town, one of which is a public school providing instruction in K-5, the other being a public school providing instruction in 6-8. Nither of which by definition are a public or private school providing instuction in K-12.

    Maybe Im out on a limb here, or stretching the definition alittle to far....but it seems to myself, a reasonable person, that by passing either of those two schools I would not be in what the 626.9 PC code defines as a school zone.
    a public or private school providing instruction in K-12, inclusive...

    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    It was a nice try though...Keep thinking.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    It was a nice try though...Keep thinking.
    +1

    It's good to get fresh ideas and toss them around.

    The issue with the AW statute was that it said, "and anything like model XXX." This created a huge potential for selective prosecution, as any DA could claim that any lower receiver is "like" one on the list. So, we have the 'loophole' of the list being exclusive.

    Now, if the statute said, "a school teaching K-12 or anything like a classroom setting," then we would have similar ground to challenge in that way. The K-12 zones would still stand, but the "everything else we have the whim to consider like a school" part would be our school zone equivalent of OLLs.
    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.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    camsoup wrote:
    I know the Calguns website and members as been able to successfully come up with the terms "OLL" and NeRFs" and basically have takeen the kaiser list, and also more recently the "CA approved firearms list" out of the equation, due to the exact wording/definitions written in the laws.

    I have read 626.9 many many times, as I read it again just yesterday after viewing the San Deigo traning memo, the wording in bold below in the PC stood out to me.


    "PC § 626.9(b) – Possession on School Grounds
    This section prohibits any person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or
    reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school
    district superintendent, designee, or equivalent school authority.
    School zone: Defined as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing
    instruction in K-12
    , inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or
    private school."


    I know I have to drive within 1000' of two different schools on my way into town, one of which is a public school providing instruction in K-5, the other being a public school providing instruction in 6-8. Nither of which by definition are a public or private school providing instuction in K-12.

    Maybe Im out on a limb here, or stretching the definition alittle to far....but it seems to myself, a reasonable person, that by passing either of those two schools I would not be in what the 626.9 PC code defines as a school zone.
    a public or private school providing instruction in K-12, inclusive...

    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    To think I sat here and read that PC code 5 times before posting to make sure I didn't miss anything....makes me feel actually I have missed that word every time I have read the PC, until now that you pointed it out.

    I cant believe anyone that would want to pass PC 626.9 would be smart enough to throw the word inclusive in there, :what:

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    camsoup wrote:
    I know I have to drive within 1000' of two different schools on my way into town, one of which is a public school providing instruction in K-5, the other being a public school providing instruction in 6-8. Nither of which by definition are a public or private school providing instuction in K-12.

    Maybe Im out on a limb here, or stretching the definition alittle to far....but it seems to myself, a reasonable person, that by passing either of those two schools I would not be in what the 626.9 PC code defines as a school zone.
    a public or private school providing instruction in K-12, inclusive...

    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    It was a nice try though...Keep thinking.
    I'll give myself an A for effort and go back to looking for other loopholes in the CA PC code,

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Most of the practical loopholes have been found and discussed here and on calguns.net.

    For the most part only incorporation of the second amendment and some legal battles will get these stupid laws knocked down.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    camsoup wrote:
    I know the Calguns website and members as been able to successfully come up with the terms "OLL" and NeRFs" and basically have takeen the kaiser list, and also more recently the "CA approved firearms list" out of the equation, due to the exact wording/definitions written in the laws.

    I have read 626.9 many many times, as I read it again just yesterday after viewing the San Deigo traning memo, the wording in bold below in the PC stood out to me.


    "PC § 626.9(b) – Possession on School Grounds
    This section prohibits any person from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or
    reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school
    district superintendent, designee, or equivalent school authority.
    School zone: Defined as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing
    instruction in K-12
    , inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or
    private school."



    a public or private school providing instruction in K-12, inclusive...

    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    I am not a lawyer, but I will beg to disagree. "Inclusive" as used here refers to a K12 school's physical characteristics. It happened that the qualifier is in the middle of the sentence.

    "Inclusive" refers to the physical location described as an "area in, or on the grounds of a school, [which hereby is qualified as a schoolproviding instructions in K12] inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of (here comes another qualifier that defines andrefersthe previously defined subject) the (not "a") public or private school.

    Here it is in bold letters.

    Defined as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing
    instruction in K-12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school."


  9. #9
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    I disagree with this. I would take K-12 inclusive to mean including K and 12.

    Say the law was speaking about little league games instead of schools. If it said guns were banned at little league games where players were the ages of 5-10 inclusive, then technically that would mean that guns would be banned only at a game where kids aged 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years were all playing. If it said 5-10 exclusive then technically it would mean guns would be banned only at a game where kids aged 6, 7, 8, and 9 years were all playing.

    I'm guessing the legislature meant to write something more along the lines of, "a public or private school providing instruction in any grade from Kindergarten to 12th grade, including Kindergarten and 12th grade."

  10. #10
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    IANAL but I believe "inclusive" is meaning the grounds of the K-through-12 school. As in, there may be a park (public grounds) attached to a school, an extra field that is still "school grounds", daycare that could be across the street but not on "school grounds"...

    Seeing as how we cannot discern the true meaning of "inclusive" in this sentence should be an example of how vague legislation should not be passed. It could be interpreted by any DA, any LEO, any Judge differently.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, orany combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    I disagree with this. I would take K-12 inclusive to mean including K and 12.

    Say the law was speaking about little league games instead of schools. If it said guns were banned at little league games where players were the ages of 5-10 inclusive, then technically that would mean that guns would be banned only at a game where kids aged 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years were all playing. If it said 5-10 exclusive then technically it would mean guns would be banned only at a game where kids aged 6, 7, 8, and 9 years were all playing.

    I'm guessing the legislature meant to write something more along the lines of, "a public or private school providing instruction in any grade from Kindergarten to 12th grade, including Kindergarten and 12th grade."
    I agree with you that the wording, if taken as written and totally literally, would only prohibit schools where all grades K-12 were being provided. However, the legislative history and obvious intent of the legislature is more important than exact wording. The literal interpretation would never stand up in court - as well it should not.
    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.

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

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    However, the legislative history and obvious intent of the legislature is more important than exact wording. The literal interpretation would never stand up in court - as well it should not.
    While I certainly agree with you, it would only be fair if we interpreted their law however we choose since they've chosen to interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean that they can infringe in nearly any way they desire.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    bigtoe416 wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    The word "inclusive" in proper English makes the sentence mean*"a public or private school providing instrustion in K-12, or K, or 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6, or 7, or 8, or 9, or 10, or 11, or 12, or*any combination thereof, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the groundsof the public or private school".
    I disagree with this. I would take K-12 inclusive to mean including K and 12.

    Say the law was speaking about little league games instead of schools. If it said guns were banned at little league games where players were the ages of 5-10 inclusive, then technically that would mean that guns would be banned only at a game where kids aged 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 years were all playing. If it said 5-10 exclusive then technically it would mean guns would be banned only at a game where kids aged 6, 7, 8, and 9 years were all playing.

    I'm guessing the legislature meant to write something more along the lines of, "a public or private school providing instruction in any grade from Kindergarten to 12th grade, including Kindergarten and 12th grade."
    I agree with you that the wording, if taken as written and totally literally, would only prohibit schools where all grades K-12 were being provided.* However, the legislative history and obvious intent of the legislature is more important than exact wording.* The literal interpretation would never stand up in court - as well it should not.
    I hate to resurrect an ancient thread, but I had saved a copy way back and just got around to mulling it over, and I couldn't help but to think it might be worth commenting on.

    in⋅clu⋅sive  [in-kloo-siv]

    –adjective
    1. including the stated limit or extremes in consideration or account: from 6 to 37 inclusive.
    2. including a great deal, or including everything concerned; comprehensive: an inclusive art form; an inclusive fee.
    3. that includes; enclosing; embracing.
    4. Grammar. (of the first person plural) including the person or persons spoken to, as we in Shall we dance? Compare exclusive (def. 12).
    So the word inclusive in reference to 1-12 simply means that both 1 and 12 are included in the range.

    (e) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:
    (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.
    Since the phrase "a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive" can only refer to either a kindergarten school or a school with grades 1 to 12 inclusive, a school that had k-6, 7-8, or 9-12, would be neither a kindergarten, nor a 1-12 school. And since there is no ambiguity in the wording of the legislation, the legislative intent is irrelevant. If the legislators want it to include "any combination of grades K and 1-12 inclusive", all they have to do is write the law including those simple words. So, per the clear, unambiguous wording of the law, unless a school is kindergarten only or includes 1-12 inclusive, it doesn't generate a school zone any more that a pre-school does.

    That said, I'm not interested in being a test case. But should either somebody get tangled in a 626.9 trap like Theseus was or should CalGuns decide to go after 626.9, it would make a valid additional prong to a legal case.

  14. #14
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    That's a good assessment. I'm relatively certain Theseus' judge wouldn't allow any such argument.

    Just so you know though, in computer science and discrete mathematics, OR can mean one can be true, the other can be true, or both can be true. Not sure if the politicians who wrote 626.9 were aware of this.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    That's a good assessment. I'm relatively certain Theseus' judge wouldn't allow any such argument.

    Just so you know though, in computer science and discrete mathematics, OR can mean one can be true, the other can be true, or both can be true. Not sure if the politicians who wrote 626.9 were aware of this.
    That's becaus a 'simple OR' is implied by convention as an inclusive-OR whereas an exclusive-OR is explicitly an XOR when dealing with those subjects.

    Unfortuantely, words often change meanings within a larger context.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    O.K. I'm new here so hello to all. Not sure if thishas already been thought of, but what about the wording of "providING instruction"? So if I'm driving home at like 11 @ night and schools are closed, thenneed I worry about driving by within the 1000' zone? Seems to me that @ 11pm they are obviously not providING instruction. Any thoughts on this?

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Mike Hawk wrote:
    O.K. I'm new here so hello to all. Not sure if thishas already been thought of, but what about the wording of "providING instruction"? So if I'm driving home at like 11 @ night and schools are closed, thenneed I worry about driving by within the 1000' zone? Seems to me that @ 11pm they are obviously not providING instruction. Any thoughts on this?
    At trial, this defense would fail with - by my estimates - 99.999% certainty.

    On appeal, you must prove to the court that there is some reason to review the wording of the law. I estimate this would fail with 80% certainty - the court would simply state "the meaning is plain, and cannot be challenged. Conviction upheld."

    If allowed to review, THEN you must prove that your interpretation is correct. This would require digging up some legislative history that supports your theory, and that evidence may not exist at all. (I have no idea if this would be successful, as I have found researching legislative history to be a highly impractical waste of time - the info is just not readily available.)

    In short: IMO don't do it.



    ETA: Almost forgot... welcome to the forums. (Got a good laugh at the user name.)
    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.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Mike Hawk wrote:
    O.K. I'm new here so hello to all. Not sure if thishas already been thought of, but what about the wording of "providING instruction"? So if I'm driving home at like 11 @ night and schools are closed, thenneed I worry about driving by within the 1000' zone? Seems to me that @ 11pm they are obviously not providING instruction. Any thoughts on this?
    ETA: Almost forgot... welcome to the forums. (Got a good laugh at the user name.)
    Much hilarity was found when Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern (the notorious connoisseur of edible genitalia) had Mike Hawk as his guide.

  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Mike Hawk wrote:
    O.K. I'm new here so hello to all. Not sure if thishas already been thought of, but what about the wording of "providING instruction"? So if I'm driving home at like 11 @ night and schools are closed, thenneed I worry about driving by within the 1000' zone? Seems to me that @ 11pm they are obviously not providING instruction. Any thoughts on this?
    I think if the legislature meant what you're talking about they would have used the same wording as Health and Safety Code 11353.6:

    Code:
    where the violation takes place upon the grounds
    of, or within 1,000 feet of, a public or private elementary,
    vocational, junior high, or high school during hours that the school
    is open for classes or school-related programs, or at any time when
    minors are using the facility where the offense occurs, shall receive
    an additional punishment of 3, 4, or 5 years at the court's
    discretion.
    It would be cool to argue that even if kids were at the school, that it was during lunchtime, so no instruction was being provided at the time. Or that the teachers are all lazy and weren't teaching anyway. I'm sure either argument would get you laughed at in court.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post


    ETA: Almost forgot... welcome to the forums. (Got a good laugh at the user name.)
    LOL Yeah, I thought it'd get some chuckles. Anyways I've been UOCing for about a month now and am finding this little rule to be a major pain in the arse.

  21. #21
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    626.9 is enforced 24/7. Dont toy with this.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Aw man that sign is priceless!

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

    Post imported post

    But let me discourage you just a little. I know UOC is fun and something which should be no big deal but...

    cato wrote:
    Continuing to UOC, 626.9 issues notwithstanding, when our activities risk personal fortune and liberty for no legal or legislative gain at present, when remedies through federal action are relatively close at hand (CGF/SAF 1-3 years), smacks of pride and not sound tactics.

    Make sure you read everything and I mean everything over here in order to make an informed decision.

    and this http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/23060.html

    and this http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=207777

    there is more where that came from:

    artwork by Oleg Volk:


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, ,
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Yeah thanks on that. I've been reading quite a bit on these furums as of late. Lots of useful info here and I'm grateful for it.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    Mike Hawk wrote:

    ETA: Almost forgot... welcome to the forums. (Got a good laugh at the user name.)
    LOL Yeah, I thought it'd get some chuckles. Anyways I've been UOCing for about a month now and am finding this little rule to be a major pain in the arse.
    what an originall name! SEE mike_hawk, been here a couple months.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

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
  •