Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Move in Assembly to expand 626.9

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    BILL NUMBER: AB 668 INTRODUCED
    BILL TEXT


    INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Lieu

    FEBRUARY 25, 2009

    An act to amend Section 626.9 of the Penal Code, relating to
    firearms.



    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


    AB 668, as introduced, Lieu. Firearms: gun-free school zones.
    Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that it is an
    offense for any person who possesses 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,
    his or her designee, or equivalent school authority. Existing law
    defines "school zone" for these purposes as 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.
    This bill would extend that distance to 1,500 feet from the
    grounds of the public or private school.
    By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
    impose a state-mandated local program.
    The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
    agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
    state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
    reimbursement.
    This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
    act for a specified reason.
    Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
    State-mandated local program: yes.


    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1. Section 626.9 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
    626.9. (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.
    (d) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful
    for any person, with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to
    discharge, or attempt to discharge, a firearm in a school zone, as
    defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (e).
    The prohibition contained in this subdivision does not apply to
    the discharge of a firearm to the extent that the conditions of
    paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) are satisfied.
    (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
    1,500 feet from the grounds of the public or private
    school.
    (2) "Firearm" has the same meaning as that term is given in
    Section 12001.
    (3) "Locked container" has the same meaning as that term is given
    in subdivision (c) of Section 12026.1.
    (4) "Concealed firearm" has the same meaning as that term is given
    in Sections 12025 and 12026.1.
    (f) (1) Any person who violates subdivision (b) by possessing a
    firearm in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school
    providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive,
    shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
    or five years.
    (2) Any person who violates subdivision (b) by possessing a
    firearm within a distance of 1,000 1,500
    feet from the grounds of a public or private school providing
    instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, shall be
    punished as follows:
    (A) By imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five
    years, if any of the following circumstances apply:
    (i) If the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or
    of any crime made punishable by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
    12000) of Title 2 of Part 4.
    (ii) If the person is within a class of persons prohibited from
    possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Section 12021 or
    12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and
    Institutions Code.
    (iii) If the firearm is any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
    capable of being concealed upon the person and the offense is
    punished as a felony pursuant to Section 12025.
    (B) By imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or
    by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or five years,
    in all cases other than those specified in subparagraph (A).
    (3) Any person who violates subdivision (d) shall be punished by
    imprisonment in the state prison for three, five, or seven years.
    (g) (1) Every person convicted under this section for a
    misdemeanor violation of subdivision (b) who has been convicted
    previously of a misdemeanor offense enumerated in Section 12001.6
    shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than
    three months, or if probation is granted or if the execution or
    imposition of sentence is suspended, it shall be a condition thereof
    that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than three
    months.
    (2) Every person convicted under this section of a felony
    violation of subdivision (b) or (d) who has been convicted previously
    of a misdemeanor offense enumerated in Section 12001.6, if probation
    is granted or if the execution of sentence is suspended, it shall be
    a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail
    for not less than three months.
    (3) Every person convicted under this section for a felony
    violation of subdivision (b) or (d) who has been convicted previously
    of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by Chapter 1
    (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 2 of Part 4, if probation is
    granted or if the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended,
    it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a
    county jail for not less than three months.
    (4) The court shall apply the three-month minimum sentence
    specified in this subdivision, except in unusual cases where the
    interests of justice would best be served by granting probation or
    suspending the execution or imposition of sentence without the
    minimum imprisonment required in this subdivision or by granting
    probation or suspending the execution or imposition of sentence with
    conditions other than those set forth in this subdivision, in which
    case the court shall specify on the record and shall enter on the
    minutes the circumstances indicating that the interests of justice
    would best be served by this disposition.
    (h) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or
    possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or
    buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research,
    or administration by, a public or private university or college, that
    are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it
    is with the written permission of the university or college
    president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college
    authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
    two, three, or four years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a
    university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary
    entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are
    prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.
    (i) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or
    possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or buildings
    owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or
    administration by, a public or private university or college, that
    are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it
    is with the written permission of the university or college
    president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college
    authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
    one, two, or three years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a
    university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary
    entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are
    prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.
    (j) For purposes of this section, a firearm shall be deemed to be
    loaded when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell, consisting of
    a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or shot, in, or
    attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited
    to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the
    firearm. A muzzle-loader firearm shall be deemed to be loaded when it
    is capped or primed and has a powder charge and ball or shot in the
    barrel or cylinder.
    (k) This section does not require that notice be posted regarding
    the proscribed conduct.
    () This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer
    as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of
    Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
    federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
    California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
    making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
    engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
    this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
    of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
    firearm pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of
    Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
    in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
    (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code.
    (m) This section does not apply to a security guard authorized to
    carry a loaded firearm pursuant to Section 12031.
    (n) This section does not apply to an existing shooting range at a
    public or private school or university or college campus.
    (o) This section does not apply to an honorably retired peace
    officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm pursuant to
    subdivision (a) or (i) of Section 12027 or paragraph (1) or (8) of
    subdivision (b) of Section 12031.
    SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
    Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
    the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
    district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
    infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
    for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
    Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
    meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
    Constitution.

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

    Post imported post

    Link?



    I went here and imput ab 668... and there it is.
    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

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    I don't know if this will work, but if not, you'll have to go to the leginfo.ca.gov site and plug in the bill number



    http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill...ntroduced.html



    Also, a new ammo bill is on the move as well. I link in another thread soon



    Woe is us, or stand and be counted

  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Cross posted at Cal Guns.

    If they can make it 1,500 feet, it may as well be a mile. If passed, such a thing would end UOC, until overturned.
    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

  5. #5
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    This law would end UOC. A school zone would be restricting our RTKBA. In my area school zones encompass whole neighborhoods or blocks. In my parents' city (Riverside) every MAJOR street has at least 1 school along it.

    We should start getting involved with CalGuns and any other group to modify this legislation, as to not restrict carrying openly/concealed by a person who is otherwise not disqualified of possessing or owning a firearm under current state law.

    Ex: felons (not sure what other groups of criminals have this right revoked).

    This way it does not become law that criminalizes, as opposed to a law that prevents crime.

    My initial hopes were that we can repeal ยง 626.9, but I highly doubt it. There are ramifications for possession of drugs and intent to distribute (understandable) and criminals with intent to commit a crime... But why penalize/criminalize those who are law abiding?

    Possibly we can work to organize this. I assume we will need funding to garner the support of a legal service, and maybe a few G's to bankroll a district rep or two. Not sure how much that is going to cost though.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    School zones don't apply to private property. This would maybe hamper car carry. So you just lock it up until you get to your destination, as many of us have to do already due to the current 1,000' rule. Adding 500' is a big pain in the ass, but wouldn't be detrimental to the movement.

    We already need to defeat 626.9. If anything, the passage of this bill would make it 50% easier to defeat it, as it affects 50% more of the public places.

    Don't sweat this one guys, it's the ammo bill and federal shenanigans we need to worry about right now.
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    What about those of us who are effected by this? I OC while riding my motorcycle everywhere.

    Similar to another member's experience with a 626.9 allegation (and charge), this would prevent such things from coming to fruition. Once the court or Judge pulled your record (assuming it went that far) and seeing that it's clear, charges would be dropped.

    Think about this...

    How would we garner support to strike down legislation that "protects" schools and school zones? Keep in mind how our opposition would spin our intent.

    Instead of trying to strike it down, modify it to sanction law abiding citizens, instead of criminalizing them.

    If a police officer wants to make sure that yes, indeed, that person in the school zone with a pistol on his hip is a lawful owner, they can. But not further than an (e) check. When they ask for your name and address that will provide enough information for them to determine if you have been convicted of any felonies, major drug charges, etc.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  8. #8
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979

    Post imported post

    If every school only occupied a grain of sand....

    ...each school zone occupies a little over 72 acres.

    expansion to a 1500 foot zonewouldresult inover 162 acres...a 225% increas in size.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    What if, instead of trying to play the governments unconstitutional games, and circumventing school zones, or maybe even trying to make school zones smaller, we all just gave them a big middle finger and excercised our CONSTITUTIONAL rights and carried locked and loaded right through the damn middle of the 'school zone'.

    I do believe the 2nd Amendment does say 'the right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That means that there shall be no laws restricting or pertaining to, in any way, the right to keep and carry weapons. No unloaded laws, no concealed carry permits, no waiting period to buy guns, no school zones, no 'detentions', none of this bull****. None of it.

    I don't give a damn whether or not people feel safer when law abiding citizens with guns are a certain distance from a freaking school. I don't give a damn if it makes sense to have certain restrictions on weapons, like full-autos and 'assault weapons'. If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", then by God and all that is holy, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!

    If I have to 'illegally' carry my weapons, own weapons, and excercise my rights in order to reform this country, then by God I will. I am not advocating anyone break any laws. I am saying enough is enough. We haven't broken any laws by owning our weapons and carrying them in school zones. We haven't broken any laws by carrying our guns loaded. We haven't broken any laws by owning automatic firearms. We have only done what is lawful. What is illegal are the laws on the books telling us what we can and can not do with our firearms. And the only people breaking the law are the lawmakers trying to pass legislation to deny us our natural freedoms.

    If I have to break these so called 'laws' in order to be free, then so be it. I will not be denied my rights.

    Give me liberty, or give me death.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Incrementalism at work. 1000' a few years back. Possibly 1500' this year. In a few years try for 2500'. Incrementalism.

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

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    We already need to defeat 626.9. If anything, the passage of this bill would make it 50% easier to defeat it, as it affects 50% more of the public places.
    I agree with this. They are shooting themselves in the foot with this. The more ridiculous the restriction, the easier it will be to challenge it in court.


  12. #12
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    fighting_for_freedom wrote:
    What if...we all just gave them a big middle finger and excercised our CONSTITUTIONAL rights and carried locked and loaded right through the damn middle of the 'school zone'.
    Believe me, nothing would give me greater pleasure.

    But you have to ask yourself, "What was the impetus that made it necessary to expand the school zones in this manner?" "What possible increase in 'gun crime' made it necessary?"

    The answer I believe, is that this is a legislative response to California Open Carry. If I am even remotely correct, it means that our activities have been deemed a threat to the anti-gun status quo-This billis a challenge intended to put a stop to the exercise of our natural rights. But there are strategies even if these traitors andenemies of the Constitution get what they want.


    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

  13. #13
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    This law is irrelevent. 1500' or 1 mile it is either going to get struck down or be found to not violate the 2nd A.

    If its the latter then I declare the Republic over.

  14. #14
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    But you have to ask yourself, "What was the impetus that made it necessary to expand the school zones in this manner?".......The answer I believe, is that this is a legislative response to California Open Carry.


    Bingo, but in doing so they weaken their legal position showing how arbitrary their "zone" is.


    photo by oleg volk:


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

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    School zones don't apply to private property. This would maybe hamper car carry. So you just lock it up until you get to your destination, as many of us have to do already due to the current 1,000' rule. Adding 500' is a big pain in the ass, but wouldn't be detrimental to the movement.

    We already need to defeat 626.9. If anything, the passage of this bill would make it 50% easier to defeat it, as it affects 50% more of the public places.

    Don't sweat this one guys, it's the ammo bill and federal shenanigans we need to worry about right now.
    I don't think that the increase in people affected is going to be in our favor here. Most people don't even know about this law, and wouldn't believe it is something to fight over

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    AyatollahGondola wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    School zones don't apply to private property. This would maybe hamper car carry. So you just lock it up until you get to your destination, as many of us have to do already due to the current 1,000' rule. Adding 500' is a big pain in the ass, but wouldn't be detrimental to the movement.

    We already need to defeat 626.9. If anything, the passage of this bill would make it 50% easier to defeat it, as it affects 50% more of the public places.

    Don't sweat this one guys, it's the ammo bill and federal shenanigans we need to worry about right now.
    I don't think that the increase in people affected is going to be in our favor here. Most people don't even know about this law, and wouldn't believe it is something to fight over



    But they will have to justify it to a federal judge who will be viewingit in the context of anenumerated Constitutional Right. The larger the zone the harder to justify the infringement.


    626.9 is a total ban on having an operable (loaded)firearm available for self defense (the base Heller right) and so is 12031 absent a 12050 LTC.

    I'm all for an expansion of 626.9 or a ban on OC (please don't throwus into that brier patch )


    photo by oleg volk:

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

    Post imported post

    Look at it this way,

    An expansion of the motor vehicle in 1992 affected everyone, but not directly. It drove several hundred thousand small companies, farmers, and private individuals into the California Motor carrier act whereby making them pay for inspections of their vehicles at regular intervals, displaying an ID # on their vehicles, submitting to drug testing, log book requirements, and a host of other responsibilities. It became law before I was even made aware of it. Unfortunately, although there are many gun owners in California, many of them would rather switch than fight. Same thing applies to vehicles, and that got us a seat belt law



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    58

    Post imported post

    fighting_for_freedom wrote:
    What if, instead of trying to play the governments unconstitutional games, and circumventing school zones, or maybe even trying to make school zones smaller, we all just gave them a big middle finger and excercised our CONSTITUTIONAL rights and carried locked and loaded right through the damn middle of the 'school zone'.

    I do believe the 2nd Amendment does say 'the right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That means that there shall be no laws restricting or pertaining to, in any way, the right to keep and carry weapons. No unloaded laws, no concealed carry permits, no waiting period to buy guns, no school zones, no 'detentions', none of this bull****. None of it.

    I don't give a damn whether or not people feel safer when law abiding citizens with guns are a certain distance from a freaking school. I don't give a damn if it makes sense to have certain restrictions on weapons, like full-autos and 'assault weapons'. If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", then by God and all that is holy, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!

    If I have to 'illegally' carry my weapons, own weapons, and excercise my rights in order to reform this country, then by God I will. I am not advocating anyone break any laws. I am saying enough is enough. We haven't broken any laws by owning our weapons and carrying them in school zones. We haven't broken any laws by carrying our guns loaded. We haven't broken any laws by owning automatic firearms. We have only done what is lawful. What is illegal are the laws on the books telling us what we can and can not do with our firearms. And the only people breaking the law are the lawmakers trying to pass legislation to deny us our natural freedoms.

    If I have to break these so called 'laws' in order to be free, then so be it. I will not be denied my rights.

    Give me liberty, or give me death.
    I'm With this guy +10000000000000000000000000

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    MrSigmaDot40 wrote:
    fighting_for_freedom wrote:
    What if, instead of trying to play the governments unconstitutional games, and circumventing school zones, or maybe even trying to make school zones smaller, we all just gave them a big middle finger and excercised our CONSTITUTIONAL rights and carried locked and loaded right through the damn middle of the 'school zone'.

    I do believe the 2nd Amendment does say 'the right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That means that there shall be no laws restricting or pertaining to, in any way, the right to keep and carry weapons. No unloaded laws, no concealed carry permits, no waiting period to buy guns, no school zones, no 'detentions', none of this bull****. None of it.

    I don't give a damn whether or not people feel safer when law abiding citizens with guns are a certain distance from a freaking school. I don't give a damn if it makes sense to have certain restrictions on weapons, like full-autos and 'assault weapons'. If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", then by God and all that is holy, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!

    If I have to 'illegally' carry my weapons, own weapons, and excercise my rights in order to reform this country, then by God I will. I am not advocating anyone break any laws. I am saying enough is enough. We haven't broken any laws by owning our weapons and carrying them in school zones. We haven't broken any laws by carrying our guns loaded. We haven't broken any laws by owning automatic firearms. We have only done what is lawful. What is illegal are the laws on the books telling us what we can and can not do with our firearms. And the only people breaking the law are the lawmakers trying to pass legislation to deny us our natural freedoms.

    If I have to break these so called 'laws' in order to be free, then so be it. I will not be denied my rights.

    Give me liberty, or give me death.
    I'm With this guy +10000000000000000000000000
    Thanks, at least somebody agrees with me. I used to live in CA, and I'm trying to move back, and all this gun crap pisses me off. Right now I live in a state where I have decent gun rights (CO) and even the little restrictions we have make me angry. We shouldn't have restrictions on guns or ammo. There should be no age limit to buy guns or ammo. There should be no laws pertaining to firearms PERIOD! If the Bill of Rights is read correctly, everyone over the age of 18 is a citizen. Therefore, citizens have full Constitutional protection over all the enumerated rights and those not specifically stated. Anyone UNDER the age of 18, being not a citizen, but a person, is subject to regulation, but ONLY BY THE STATES INDIVIDUALLY.

    That is the way the Constitution reads. At least, in my opinion.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I think this is a likely answer to OC. It being discussed that they won't get away with a full prohibition of OC, but to extend the "zone" the easier it is.

    Most importantly we need to try and prove in some way whether the "zones" have had any real effect on reduction of crime or if it simply makes more criminals out of people that would otherwise not be.

    I don't know how to conduct this research, but think that it would be key. Anyone have any idea how to start this kind of research?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    fighting_for_freedom wrote:
    What if, instead of trying to play the governments unconstitutional games, and circumventing school zones, or maybe even trying to make school zones smaller, we all just gave them a big middle finger and excercised our CONSTITUTIONAL rights and carried locked and loaded right through the damn middle of the 'school zone'.

    I do believe the 2nd Amendment does say 'the right to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." That means that there shall be no laws restricting or pertaining to, in any way, the right to keep and carry weapons. No unloaded laws, no concealed carry permits, no waiting period to buy guns, no school zones, no 'detentions', none of this bull****. None of it.

    I don't give a damn whether or not people feel safer when law abiding citizens with guns are a certain distance from a freaking school. I don't give a damn if it makes sense to have certain restrictions on weapons, like full-autos and 'assault weapons'. If the Constitution says "shall not be infringed", then by God and all that is holy, THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS!

    If I have to 'illegally' carry my weapons, own weapons, and excercise my rights in order to reform this country, then by God I will. I am not advocating anyone break any laws. I am saying enough is enough. We haven't broken any laws by owning our weapons and carrying them in school zones. We haven't broken any laws by carrying our guns loaded. We haven't broken any laws by owning automatic firearms. We have only done what is lawful. What is illegal are the laws on the books telling us what we can and can not do with our firearms. And the only people breaking the law are the lawmakers trying to pass legislation to deny us our natural freedoms.

    If I have to break these so called 'laws' in order to be free, then so be it. I will not be denied my rights.

    Give me liberty, or give me death.
    I feel the same way, but the government can and will destroy your life for exercising your freedom and hurting NO ONE. It can take years from you and put you behind metal bars, because it is bigger and stronger than you. It doesn't matter if you haven't hurt anyone or you won't hurt anyone, the mere fact that it's against the law is enough to justify destroying your life.

    There is no justice in the justice system. They continue to perpetuate the idea that possession equals intent.

    The government has the power to end you or to just take your liberty and lock you in a cell with no freedom to move freely.

    This is the leviathan we face, a heartless, spineless, stupid beast with a penal code as its bible.

    We must all face it together, and we must all stand firm. Let the state attempt to arrest 10,000 people, let it attempt to arrest 100,000 people, and watch its prisons crumble under our weight.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
    We must all face it together, and we must all stand firm. Let the state attempt to arrest 10,000 people, let it attempt to arrest 100,000 people, and watch its prisons crumble under our weight.
    Organize those 10,000/100,000 people, name a time and a place, and I'll stand at the front with you.

    This country was formed by an armed rebellion. Would it be wrong to reform it the same way? Sadly, it may be our only option. Petitions and lobbying hasn't worked.

    We need to set the record straight once and for all, and for the entire country. The federal government has violated the Constitution by creating gun laws. The states have broken their contract with the federal government (that contract being the Constitution) by creating gun laws. So, legally, we are no longer a nation. We are a bunch of individual states. The Constitution put down the rules that the feds have to play by. The states, by joining the US, had to agree to that same contract.

    That contract has been broken, violated, and sodomized beyond recognition. We must right the wrong, or be slaves to an invalid government that no longer recognizes the highest law.

    Anyone feel the way I do?

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

    Post imported post

    fighting_for_freedom wrote:
    Anyone feel the way I do?

    John Browndid havehis place in history (and a date with a noose). I just don't think the country (or even a decently sized minority ofLiberty activists)has progressed to the place in which you seem to have arrived.

    Many peaceful avenues (decades of work) must still be exhausted. Heller certainly brought many back from the brink. What Gura did was nothing less thengive the Republic another chance.



    byoleg volk:


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    105

    Post imported post

    cato wrote:
    fighting_for_freedom wrote:
    Anyone feel the way I do?

    John Browndid havehis place in history (and a date with a noose). I just don't think the country (or even a decently sized minority ofLiberty activists)has progressed to the place in which you seem to have arrived.

    Many peaceful avenues (decades of work) must still be exhausted. Heller certainly brought many back from the brink. What Gura did was nothing less thengive the Republic another chance.

    John Brown also staged a violent uprising. What if enough of us got together in the same place and committed a blatant act of civil disobedience? What would happen then, I wonder? Would we all be jailed? Would they change the law? Would they even take notice? I wonder.

    I want my freedom.


  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    I fear that no matter how just the cause there are not enough people in America with the courage and strength of character to stand and effect change.

    The government and other powers that be have done a great job of distracting us away from having the fortitude to stand and instead make us slaves to our lives, too busy to take notice or the time to incite change.

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
  •