1000 feet from a school?

imported post

edit!

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Some argue that 626.9 says that "legally transported" as the exemption to non-concealable firearms. . . the definition of transported. Are you carrying or transporting when you OC a rifle?

Can you carry and not transport? Can you transport and not carry? It is the kind of danger zone. And since the DA's don't give legal advice you will never know unless they arrest, charge and convict someone that creates precedence.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Some argue that 626.9 says that "legally transported" as the exemption to non-concealable firearms. . . the definition of transported. Are you carrying or transporting when you OC a rifle?

Can you carry and not transport? Can you transport and not carry? It is the kind of danger zone. And since the DA's don't give legal advice you will never know unless they arrest, charge and convict someone that creates precedence.

Click to expand...

626.9(c) says...

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.

Click to expand...

Legalese translation: "this section does not apply to long guns, as long as you're not breaking some other law."

(Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.)

(Edits: typo and formatting)

imported post

Perhaps, but as has been pointed out, there is an Overturf situation.

626.9 prohibits possession. Possession can be exempt if you are transporting.Other codes don't specifically define transporting, but they do differentiate between carry and transport. What is that difference?

I know we think we know, but I thought it was painfully clear what private property was. It seemed to me the basic understanding that property is either private or public being differentiated by ownership by a private or public entity.

My point being is that if the legislature does not define it then the DA can argue ANY definition that fits his desire and unless you have case law that ties the hands of the judge it can go either way.

I have said it before, the DA admitted I did not break the law as it was defined, but since no definition of "private property" existed that the court needed to define it using his definition combined with legislative intent.

This simple difference has cost me $20K already and will cost probably near $40K by the time I am done and I might still get convicted and loose my rights to guns for 10 years.