• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Move in Assembly to expand 626.9

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
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.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
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 § 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.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
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.
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
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.
 

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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:
 

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
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
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
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:
 

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
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
 

MrSigmaDot40

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
58
Location
, California, USA
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.
:exclaim:I'm With this guy +10000000000000000000000000:exclaim:
 

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
:exclaim:I'm With this guy +10000000000000000000000000:exclaim:

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.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
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?
 
Top