Open Carry at Jiffy-Lube today

imported post

Theseus makes an interesting point. The law does say that 626.9 applies to "firearms" and that it doesn't apply to unconcealable firearms being lawfully transported. So if I'm walking past a school with a long gun, that wouldn't fall under 626.9 since I'm transporting it. Same goes for all other forms of transportation.

But what if I'm walking across the state and I get tired and need to take a break? I stop within 1000' of a school and eat some food and give my legs a rest. At this point am I violating 626.9? One could argue it either way; I'm not in motion so I'm not transporting the long gun, but I'm also still in the process of making a long journey, so I am still transporting it to my final destination.

Another interesting point is that the law doesn't say what path we must take to qualify as transporting, nor does it say if we even have to be going anywhere. An extreme example of this is transporting a long gun one foot away from my current location. The law doesn't say I can't walk around the block to get there. The law also doesn't say that we can't get lost or give up and return to where we started, nor does it say we can't stop for gas, stop because we are tired, or any other reason. I believe this allows us ample room to dodge the requirement that we must be transporting in order to avoid 626.9.

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

But what if I'm walking across the state and I get tired and need to take a break? I stop within 1000' of a school and eat some food and give my legs a rest. At this point am I violating 626.9? One could argue it either way; I'm not in motion so I'm not transporting the long gun, but I'm also still in the process of making a long journey, so I am still transporting it to my final destination.

Click to expand...

If you accept that interpretation of transporting, just make sure you don't park on the street. Private property is exempt from 626.9.

The statute doesn't state that you have to be going directly to or directly from any place, so you can walk circles around the school if you want. So long as you aren't violating any other law, 626.9 doesn't apply to transportation of long guns.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Look at this without the confusion of the rest of the statute cluttering the scene.

"...otherwise lawful transportation..." simply means you aren't violating any other statutes, such as 12031.

So, I was incorrect when I said 626.9 "never" applies to long guns. It would apply if (and only if) you were to violate any other law with a long gun while in a 'gun free school zone."

As for the 'stay in motion or you're no longer transporting' argument... give me a break! Imagine if that were applied to all the 'transportation' exemptions for 12025. You'd be committing a misdemeanor by stopping at a stop light.

(We've had this discussion on this forum before, and we're on the verge of threadjacking. If you want to discuss this further, I ask that you post a new thread. I'd be glad to pound sense into you elsewhere. :lol: )

Click to expand...

:shock: Lets just hope it is the only thing you "pound"! Haha! Yeah! I went there. . .

Seriously though, I am learning quite quickly that these punks will use every unreasonable argument and hang on the definition of every word in their pursuit to get you with something.

I myself would think that a shotgun rack like in a cops car and a locker for my pistol. That way I would always be within the law without a means to defend myself.

As for thread jacking. . . I thought it was prudent, but this is the last I will say on it.

My DA is trying to get case law that would make private property exemption only applicable to the OWNER of the property as in 12025/12026.

imported post

If your DA is successful that means if you rent property you cannot OC on the property, nor possess a firearm that could be concealed on the property if within the magical 1500' "school zone" because you're renting... not owning the property.

Essentially you would have to keep your firearms in a perpetual non-functioning state, or locked up.

With all of these changes coming to the penal codes applied to possessing a firearm [PC §626.9, PC §12025 & PC §12026], we need to get on the defensive and strike down these changes; possibly getting the help of the NRA-ILA, Calguns, GOA, etc. These changes will negatively effect ownership and possession, directly infringing on our 2A rights. Legislators and whacko anti-rights activists need to learn that passing more laws outlawing an otherwise lawful act only creates more criminals, instead of preventing crime.

But IMHO The cities and counties want more and more laws passed to create more crimes, to which they can get more revenue. They operate as a business always seeking more streams of income, and they have the power to pass laws enforcing those revenue streams.

Theseus wrote:

:shock: Lets just hope it is the only thing you "pound"! Haha! Yeah! I went there. . .

Seriously though, I am learning quite quickly that these punks will use every unreasonable argument and hang on the definition of every word in their pursuit to get you with something.

I myself would think that a shotgun rack like in a cops car and a locker for my pistol. That way I would always be within the law without a means to defend myself.

As for thread jacking. . . I thought it was prudent, but this is the last I will say on it.

My DA is trying to get case law that would make private property exemption only applicable to the OWNER of the property as in 12025/12026.

Click to expand...

imported post

demnogis wrote:

If your DA is successful that means if you rent property you cannot OC on the property, nor possess a firearm that could be concealed on the property if within the magical 1500' "school zone" because you're renting... not owning the property.

Click to expand...

Uhm... minor correction-that's 1,000 feet, not 1,500 feet.