Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Would AB688, school zone expansion law, pertain to unconcealable firearms?

  1. #1
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090601_amended_asm_v97.html



    (2) When a lawfully possessed pistol, revolver, or other firearm
    capable of being concealed on the person is unloaded and is in a
    locked container inside a motor vehicle or unloaded and inside a
    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 , including the otherwise lawful
    possession or lawful transportation of a firearm, other than a
    pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
    the person, located within a vehicle while the
    vehicle is
    on the driveway or the parking lot of a school
    .
    [/quote]


    I may be reading it wrong but the best conclusion I've come to is that it still does not apply to unconcealable firearms, and in addition unconcealable firearms are even allowed on parking lots and driveways of schools when in a vehicle?

    It seems like it could be read in many ways but other ways seem to make less sense. It almost appears for example that it would make transporting unconceable firearms illegal under all circumstances within 1500 feet except when on a driveway or parking lot, but that woudn't make any sense at all since you would have to drive through the illegal 1500 foot zone first!

    (Edited to add: The bill is AB668 not 688... that was a typo.)


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    You are correct, and it is as bad as you think it is. Consequences of UOC in California has come home to roost, and now, anyone who lives within the 1500 foot school zone, and doesn't have a garage and a motor vehicle, is now 100 percent unable to go home with a gun or leave home with it.


    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090601_amended_asm_v97.html



    (2) When a lawfully possessed pistol, revolver, or other firearm
    capable of being concealed on the person is unloaded and is in a
    locked container inside a motor vehicle or unloaded and inside a
    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 , including the otherwise lawful
    possession or lawful transportation of a firearm, other than a
    pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
    the person, located within a vehicle while the
    vehicle is
    on the driveway or the parking lot of a school
    .
    I may be reading it wrong but the best conclusion I've come to is that it still does not apply to unconcealable firearms, and in addition unconcealable firearms are even allowed on parking lots and driveways of schools when in a vehicle?

    It seems like it could be read in many ways but other ways seem to make less sense. It almost appears for example that it would make transporting unconceable firearms illegal under all circumstances within 1500 feet except when on a driveway or parking lot, but that woudn't make any sense at all since you would have to drive through the illegal 1500 foot zone first!


  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Your reading seems to be correct.

    It would seem to me that this bill gives preferential treatment to those who own cars and have a garage for those cars. The poor who either rent a place without a garage accessible from inside their apartment, or own a car too big to fit in their garage, or don't own a car at all cannot leave their homes with their weapons under any circumstances.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    edit!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  5. #5
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these laws? They are not designed to prevent any crime, but merely to make criminals of people who have no intent or inclination to commit a crime. The fact that they can extend into public thoroughfares and rights-of-way as well as private property and impenetrable boundaries is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Bass Pro Shops in Rancho Cucamonga sells all types of guns. There are two schools well within 1,500 feet of that property and under the current law a portion of the parking lot is already in the 1,000 foot zone. If this were to pass, everyone who stepped outside that building with a firearm would be guilty of a felony. They would be forced to stop selling guns under the new law because people could not walk to their car with them.

    I know the federal law was struck down once but that was on a technicality and they passed the exact same law again with language referencing the commerce clause to make it legal under the SCOTUS ruling. But as far as I can tell nobody has ever challenged the constitutionality of these laws on their face. I know the NRA won't do it because they are a bunch of pussies and would never recover from the left wing media backlash that would ensue. "The NRA wants guns in schools! They want to murder your children!" etc, ad nauseum.

    I know Theseus's case is pending but I fear any ruling in his favor would not have broad enough implications since he was on private property. I want to be able to walk down a public sidewalk while conducting my lawful business or pleasure and not have to fear that I may unwittingly wander into a school zone.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  6. #6
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    Has anyone ever challenged the constitutionality of these laws? They are not designed to prevent any crime, but merely to make criminals of people who have no intent or inclination to commit a crime. The fact that they can extend into public thoroughfares and rights-of-way as well as private property and impenetrable boundaries is blatantly unconstitutional.

    The Bass Pro Shops in Rancho Cucamonga sells all types of guns. There are two schools well within 1,500 feet of that property and under the current law a portion of the parking lot is already in the 1,000 foot zone. If this were to pass, everyone who stepped outside that building with a firearm would be guilty of a felony. They would be forced to stop selling guns under the new law because people could not walk to their car with them.

    I know the federal law was struck down once but that was on a technicality and they passed the exact same law again with language referencing the commerce clause to make it legal under the SCOTUS ruling. But as far as I can tell nobody has ever challenged the constitutionality of these laws on their face. I know the NRA won't do it because they are a bunch of pussies and would never recover from the left wing media backlash that would ensue. "The NRA wants guns in schools! They want to murder your children!" etc, ad nauseum.

    I know Theseus's case is pending but I fear any ruling in his favor would not have broad enough implications since he was on private property. I want to be able to walk down a public sidewalk while conducting my lawful business or pleasure and not have to fear that I may unwittingly wander into a school zone.
    As far as I know, no nobody has challenged it yet. And as far as BPS in RC goes, it's just a classic example of how much discretion the officers on the street have, they don't seek it out, therefore they don't arrest, therefore nobody gets prosecuted, therefore no challenges. So many laws are like this, they go completely unnoticed, and are implemented as a means of individual control, cultural reform, and they know from the very beginning that nobody is really going to "police" it, but it becomes just one more thing they can pin you on when they do decide to make their examples.

    I floated this idea on the calguns site, and many thought I was off-base...why challenge all these laws in court, why live under a state constitution with no 2A provision...why not just get a 2A constitutional amendment/referendum on the ballotonce and for all. And do like the libs do, if it fails just keep on doing it until it passes.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    So they want to extend the zone to 1500', make it so the firearm HAS to be in a locked container in a vehicle or trunk of a vehicle....but the driveway and parking lot are exempted and not considered school grounds??

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    I know the federal law was struck down once but that was on a technicality and they passed the exact same law again with language referencing the commerce clause to make it legal under the SCOTUS ruling.
    Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution is _not_ a technicality. Congress has very specific enumerated powers, they cannot overstep these powers, they cannot grant themselves more powers. I would love to hear your explanation as to how Congress passes the same law and it magically becomes legal and bypasses the ruling of United States v. Lopez.

    As far as I am aware, the Supreme Court ruled the Gun Free School Act unconstitutional because it in no way affects interstate commerce. Lopez is consistently cited as the example of the limits of what Congress can pass as law. There are three branches of government, no branch is more powerful than the next, but each branch has certain powers. If the Supreme Court says the gun free school zone act is unconstitutional, and Congress re-passes it, I cannot believe that it is the slightest bit valid.

    In this case Congress has acted outside their limits, and like stubborn children, have refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision of Lopez.

  9. #9
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    I agree with you bigtoe, the "technicality" is only a technicality as far as the members of Congress are concerned, since they simply re-passed the same law, in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled that carrying a handgun (in the case of Lopez) on scool grounds is not a commercial activity and in no way affects interstate commerce.

    I fully agree that the federal government has no right whatsoever to pass this law, and that goes for probably 99%+ of the other laws they pass. The federal law would not stand up again in court. It is the state laws that I am concerned about, and those are the ones that need to be challenged.

    Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce. Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    If this passes, my plan is to simplify my life by discontinuing open carry of handguns.

    Long guns will be the only legally practical self defense weapons to carry.
    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.

  11. #11
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    wewd wrote:
    I agree with you bigtoe, the "technicality" is only a technicality as far as the members of Congress are concerned, since they simply re-passed the same law, in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled that carrying a handgun (in the case of Lopez) on scool grounds is not a commercial activity and in no way affects interstate commerce.

    I fully agree that the federal government has no right whatsoever to pass this law, and that goes for probably 99%+ of the other laws they pass. The federal law would not stand up again in court. It is the state laws that I am concerned about, and those are the ones that need to be challenged.
    Agreed, they both need to be challenged. Problem is who is going to volunteer themselves to be that test case? Wouldn't it take someone getting arrested for it first? At the very least that person would need to have a lot of money and/or committed support and/or an already established and fundedlegal defensefund, a 2A legal team ready to pounce when called, and then go out and do it. That's a pretty big effort and commitment.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Discovery Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    The BassPro in Manteca has a school directly behind it. Google Earth hasn't updated its maps, but the front door to BassPro is almostcertainlywithin 1500ft.

    TheIndoor PistolRange in Ripon is also at about 1200ft from a school.

    What a mess!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    If this passes, my plan is to simplify my life by discontinuing open carry of handguns.

    Long guns will be the only legally practical self defense weapons to carry.
    Just thinking of walking past the Junior high school with my 18.5" barreled Mossberg slung on my shoulder and the side saddle full of low recoil 00 buck makes me all giddy!

    Maybe we ALL should OC long guns, :celebrate

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    edit!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    dirtykoala wrote:
    ...i feel that a huge dissadvantage to UOC of hand guns is that in a face to face situation its simply too late to defend your self...
    I disagree. In fact, it should be VERY rare that you don't have at least a couple seconds to see a threat coming. Also, for me it is faster to draw and acquire site picture with a handgun (though that might just be from practice).

    That's not to say long guns have no defensive uses..."The right tool for each job."

    I think that handguns suffice for the majority of SD situations. Primarily since the mere presence of a firearm will defuse most situations. In the rare situations where deadly force is actually applied, a handgun will do the trick just fine. Statistics show that most SD shootings happen at an average range of about 20 feet.

    However, in those even more rare cases where the BG is wearing body armor, or where the BG is using a rifle at range, then it would be nice to be able to select between handgun and long gun.

    The real down side to long gun carry is inconvenience. A handgun can be carried anywhere without being much of a burden. Even the smallest long guns far outweigh the average handgun, and are much larger and more awkward to carry.

    IMO, the optimal solution would be to have a loaded handgun on your hip at all times, and then loaded shotgun and rifle stowed in your vehicle. (LE don't do it this way by mistake... it's really the most convenient and effective way to do things.)

    Of course, the biggest inconvenience of all is the requirement to carry unloaded in most places we go. This, of course, affects gun carry of any kind.
    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.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    edit!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

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

    Post imported post

    My opinion of this is that forcing us into OC of long guns would be rather intentional so that the perception of us is even more stigmatized, ie look at those crazy gun toter's walking by those scared little kids at school.

    Long guns stand out even more than a handgun, and as such will catch the eye of people more often and be caught on camera more often. I do OC my long guns, but that's mainly because it's what I have and what I grew up with. I'm old school. But in the long run, more OC'ing of long guns is going to further the agenda of the strict gun restrictionist crowd unless we can find a way to wrest their propaganda away from them.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Shouldn't you get an explanation of this change in the law from your elected representatives? The ones who write laws?

    Write to them. Voice your concerns. Ask your questions. See what their response is.

  19. #19
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Statkowski wrote:
    Shouldn't you get an explanation of this change in the law from your elected representatives? The ones who write laws?

    Write to them. Voice your concerns. Ask your questions. See what their response is.
    We do this, and the ones authoring and voting in favor of these bills know that their voting blocks don't care enough about gun issues to vote them out (or would in fact vote them out if they didn't back gun control).

    CA is simply an over-populated state. There are very few issues that would get a bad politician voted out because they have so many constituents with so many issues.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •