Headline: "Teen Arrested With Loaded Gun In School Zone"

imported post

http://cbs13.com/local/vacaville.teen.arrest.2.967607.html

VACAVILLE (CBS13)
A Vacaville teen has been arrested on charges of having a loaded gun in a school zone.

A Vacaville Youth Services Officer spotted the suspectand two friends hanging out in a shopping area near Vaca Pena MIddle School. The officer thought the boys were acting suspiciously and noticed one of the boys turn away and shove something into his jacket when he saw the officer.

When the officer stopped to question the boys, he discovered a loaded handgun concealed in the suspect's jacket. The suspect claimed he was going to target practice after school and had no intentions of using it during school.

The 13-year-old suspect was arrested for having a gun in a school zone, which is within 1,000 feet of a school, carrying a concealed weapon and carrying loaded firearm in public. He was booked into Solano County Juvenile Hall.

Police are still trying to determine who owns the gun and where the teen got it. His family told police they do not own the gun.

imported post

Sounds like the kid was on private property, but may have been charged with a 626.9 violation.

Let's just hope the defense plea bargains out... this has the potential of creating some bad case law...

imported post

It sounds like he's being dinged for 626.9, 12025, 12031- Im sure the police will go on up the food chain as well to charge the person responsible for allowing a minor to access a firearm.

The news story doenst get specific as to the locality he was arrested- He may well have been standing on a public sidewalk 'near a shopping center'...

What I'd really like to know from the powers that be is: Is charging this individual for three crimes (loaded, concealed, and possession in a gun free school zone.) going to deter anyone else from wandering around school zones armed with the intent to commit a crime? If the person is going to rob or murder someone using a loaded concealed firearm near a school, what good is it to ban posession or a particular kind of carry?

Unless you intend to violate everyone's fourth amendment rights by searching everyone in a given area, you cannot hope to enforce a weapons ban with any effectiveness- otherwise the powers that bemust rely on voluntary compliance.

imported post

They will probably get the owner on 12035

(2) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a person commits the
crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the second degree" if he
or she keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under
his or her custody or control and he or she knows or reasonably
should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm
without the permission of the child's parent or legal guardian and
the child obtains access to the firearm and thereby causes injury,
other than great bodily injury, to himself, herself, or any other
person, or carries the firearm either to a public place or in
violation of Section 417.

imported post

I'm guessing he was at the Regency Park Plaza, which as you can see from this map (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q....350121,-121.951632&spn=0.019756,0.03828&z=15) that most of the plaza falls under the 1000' distance from the school (but not all). It's definitely incorporated land though, so the kid will get charged with the loaded gun part lacking some miracle circumstance where he was in dire fear for his life or something. When Theseus wins his case, maybe this guy can use that as case law to void the 626.9 charge and just be stuck with concealing a loaded weapon (yay?).

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

It sounds like he's being dinged for 626.9, 12025, 12031- Im sure the police will go on up the food chain as well to charge the person responsible for allowing a minor to access a firearm.

The news story doenst get specific as to the locality he was arrested- He may well have been standing on a public sidewalk 'near a shopping center'...

What I'd really like to know from the powers that be is: Is charging this individual for three crimes (loaded, concealed, and possession in a gun free school zone.) going to deter anyone else from wandering around school zones armed with the intent to commit a crime? If the person is going to rob or murder someone using a loaded concealed firearm near a school, what good is it to ban posession or a particular kind of carry?

Unless you intend to violate everyone's fourth amendment rights by searching everyone in a given area, you cannot hope to enforce a weapons ban with any effectiveness- otherwise the powers that bemust rely on voluntary compliance.

Click to expand...

Exactly. We don't know what the kid would have done with the gun had he not been caught. The laws didn't stop him from having a loaded/concealed gun in a "gun free school zone." If this kid hadn't drawn attention to himself he probably wouldn't have been caught until he used the gun.

As for deterrent? I doubt it. The kind of kids that carry guns are probably just going to learn from this tool's mistakes. They won't learn to not carry a gun, they'll just learn how to better get away with it.

So, what if this kid had started shooting. Let's assume for a moment that he was on a public street near the school, or even on campus. The laws prevent anybody but the cops from carrying in these areas. There might be one on campus... maybe. The laws would ensure only that the kid had plenty of time to do maximum damage against fish in a barrel.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here... just had to rant a bit.

imported post

Actually the school in question is right behind that shopping center or it is across from the other shopping center... I used to live in that town so I know where it is at. I have a feeling the parents or whoever let them have access to the gun is going to get popped too. Looking at the map Bigtoe put up it was the mall directly in front of the school which would put it in the 1000 foot zone. Although unless it was during school hours I question why the school resource officer was cruising the strip mall parking lot or where the teens in question actually closer to the school first. Will be interesting to see how this one all plays out.

imported post

The parents claimed not to own the gun nor knew he had it. Chances are, it's stolen and was acquired in an illegal street sale.

I highly doubt they will find the person that sold him the gun.

I also just re-read the PC for 626.9. There is not even a provision that allows possessing an unloaded/loaded firearm even when in danger or fear for your life (unless you have a valid restraining order against the assailant).

So, hypothetically... Say there was an assailant breaking into your home. You arm yourself, go out the back door, come around the front and the assailant then makes his way back to you... Because your home falls within a school zone, even after defending yourself you could (and probably would, in CA) be charged with a felony violation of 626.9. Unless, of course, there is case precedent with a determination that the property of your home (not just inside) is still "Private Property", in which case you would be fine.

Now, if you had to run into the street where you were still being pursued, then opened fire, you're up **** creek without a paddle...

Even more proof that this bastardization of a "safety, for the children" law needs to be repealed.

imported post

I am wondering about the "...officer stopped to question the boys, he discovered a loaded handgun concealed in the suspect's jacket" part of the story.

Granted, I wasn't there, so I really don't have any idea about how if unfolded. But was there RAS or PC for a Terry stop to "discover" a handgun that was "concealed"? How was it discovered if it was truly concealed? What was the the "suspicious" activity to prompt the stop?

If I had to guess, the teen said "no" to a "do you mind if I frisk you?" and unknowingly waived his 4th.

Are there different rules applied to juveniles who may or may not be considered "truant" by not being in class?

If the officer prevented a tragedy (if there were threats against fellow students, or other shenanigans, unbeknownst to us at the time of the article) and it was all above board, well, good on him.

If the kid was just a knucklehead who knew nothing about 626.9 (why should he, they don't even teach civics these days, do they?) and actually was gonna head out to plink after school, bummer for him, 'cuz he might face a world of legal hurt for a while.

This school-zone nonsense needs to be un-done.

(the next sound you hear is me, getting down off my soap box):lol:

imported post

nukechaser wrote:

I am wondering about the "...officer stopped to question the boys, he discovered a loaded handgun concealed in the suspect's jacket" part of the story.

Granted, I wasn't there, so I really don't have any idea about how if unfolded. But was there RAS or PC for a Terry stop to "discover" a handgun that was "concealed"? How was it discovered if it was truly concealed? What was the the "suspicious" activity to prompt the stop?

Click to expand...

"noticed one of the boys turn away and shove something into his jacket when he saw the officer."

Right there is the Reasonable Articulable Suspiscion. An Officer approaches, and the kid tries to hide something. Could be drugs, could be a shoplifted item, could be a gun. Seems to me that this raises a reasonable suspiscion that the kid is hiding something illegal.



Here is a more indepth story on this:

http://cbs5.com/crime/vacaville.school.gun.2.967717.html

Boy Arrested With Loaded Gun Near Vacaville School
Vacaville police arrested a 13-year-old boy Wednesday morning for having a gun in a school zone.

The boy was arrested at about 7:45 a.m. at a Rite Aid store in a strip mall at 2050 Nut Tree Road, across the street from the Vaca Pena Middle School on Keith Way, Sgt. Kim Humbert said.

The boy didn't bring the gun onto the school campus, Humbert said.

The Vacaville Police Department's Youth Services Officer Tim Garrido was patrolling the shopping area when he saw three boys acting suspiciously on the side of the Rite Aid building, Humbert said.

When the teen noticed the patrol car, he turned away from the officer and shoved something in his jacket, Humbert said. When Garrido questioned the boys he discovered a handgun concealed in the teen's jacket, Humbert said.

The gun was loaded and the boy claimed he was planning to go to target practice after school, Humbert said.

The boy insisted he had no conflicts with anyone at school and had no intention of using the gun at school, Humbert said. The teen said he was showing the gun to his friends, Humbert said.

There were no threats or acts of aggression involving the gun, Humbert said. The boy's family was contacted and they said they do not own the weapon, Humbert said.

Police are still trying to determine who owns the gun and how the teen got a hold of it, Humbert said.

The boy was arrested for possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school, carrying a concealed firearm and carrying a loaded firearm in
public, Humbert said. He was booked into the Solano County juvenile hall.

Humbert said Vacaville police and the Vacaville Unified School District have a zero-tolerance policy regarding weapons in or around a school.

imported post

Decoligny wrote:

"noticed one of the boys turn away and shove something into his jacket when he saw the officer."

Right there is the Reasonable Articulable Suspiscion. An Officer approaches, and the kid tries to hide something. Could be drugs, could be a shoplifted item, could be a gun. Seems to me that this raises a reasonable suspiscion that the kid is hiding something illegal.

Click to expand...

Remember, the officer has to be able to articulate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Simply shoving something into your jacket isn't a crime. If the officer didn't see an illegal item being concealed, there is no RAS to search. Could be drugs, stolen property, a gun... sure... could also have been an adult magazine, a cheat sheet to an upcoming test, or a doughnut that they didn't want the cop to take from them.

While "suspicious" movements may justify further observation or a consensual contact, I don't think the situation described meets the requirements of the Terry Doctrine.

imported post

DARN ANOTHER ONE violated the no weapons in a KILL ZONE gee I didnt see that one coming

imported post

Well I will tell you guys, some may not like it, but my case is shooting right at the heart of the GFSZA. They came up fighting and although things looked bleak I have a renewed desire to see the end of this law and am bringing everything to bear and so is my representation.

The only thing we really lack is stronger support. I can't do this alone. Although I have received some help form the community it is not near enough. Help where you can with what you can.

imported post

Any suggestions where we can help ?? I cant afford to get arrested for violating the kill zone but i will protest with unloaded holster. btw i now wear a tshirt that reads " this is what concealed looks like while on campus" You guys have to see the student reaction it amazing