• 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.

Stopped by police within 1000 feet of school

KAISER-MAN

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
23
Location
Modesto, CA
imported post

If I were to OC at the mall, leave, and get into my car and later get pulled over by police and pull over within a 1000 feet of a school, would that constitute a violation of the law? It didn't happen but can anyone tell me the answer?

KAISER-MAN
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Assuming you're open carrying a handgun, you'd be in violation of 626.9 if you hadn't put your handgun in a fully enclosed locked container.
 

Theseus

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

Don't worry about me, I will likely loose at trial, but will absolutely win on appeal.

And if I am convicted then I really do have damages! He he. . .
 

KAISER-MAN

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
23
Location
Modesto, CA
imported post

OK lets say that I'm OC anddriving my motorcycle and I get pulled over by LE within a 1000 feet of a school is this a violation? I'm assuming that you can drive a vehicle while you OC. Should you transport your weapon ina locked container and get it out to OC? On a motorcycle you don't have a lot of options.

KAISER-MAN
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

KAISER-MAN wrote:
OK lets say that I'm OC anddriving my motorcycle and I get pulled over by LE within a 1000 feet of a school is this a violation? I'm assuming that you can drive a vehicle while you OC. Should you transport your weapon ina locked container and get it out to OC? On a motorcycle you don't have a lot of options.

KAISER-MAN
That's a good question, I don't know the answer. But I will speculate (although I have nothing to back this up...kind of just thinking out load, so to speak). My truck doesn't have a trunk, so I feel free to carry my locked up pistol anywhere I want to in the cab. Does your bike have lockable side bags? If not, then maybe you would be OK, if it does then you probably wouldn't be OK. You might want to discuss with an attorney on this one.
 

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
imported post

KAISER-MAN wrote:
OK lets say that I'm OC anddriving my motorcycle and I get pulled over by LE within a 1000 feet of a school is this a violation? I'm assuming that you can drive a vehicle while you OC. Should you transport your weapon ina locked container and get it out to OC? On a motorcycle you don't have a lot of options.

KAISER-MAN
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.


Your defense is that you didn't know a school was in the area.
 

ConditionThree

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

Yooper wrote:
Your defense is that you didn't know a school was in the area.
Yeah. I don't think any more of us really want to put that to a test. There is a case where one of the posters in this thread is having to defend themselves against a charge of 626.9- While the burden to prove whether or not they knew the area was a school zone is on the accuser, there is even some dispute over what private property is. If they can redefine private property, I'm sure they can redefine what they think you know.
 

Theseus

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

ConditionThree wrote:
Yooper wrote:
Your defense is that you didn't know a school was in the area.
Yeah. I don't think any more of us really want to put that to a test. There is a case where one of the posters in this thread is having to defend themselves against a charge of 626.9- While the burden to prove whether or not they knew the area was a school zone is on the accuser, there is even some dispute over what private property is. If they can redefine private property, I'm sure they can redefine what they think you know.
That isn't entirely true.

I don't have the burden of proof, they do. From the last DA they were trying to argue strict liability, meaning no knowledge or intent is required. . . if I break it I am guilty. They may win that argument, they may not. As mentioned before, I will likely lose at trial, but I will certainly win on appeal.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

dirtykoala wrote:
Theseus wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:

That isn't entirely true.

I don't have the burden of proof, they do. From the last DA they were trying to argue strict liability, meaning no knowledge or intent is required. . . if I break it I am guilty. They may win that argument, they may not. As mentioned before, I will likely lose at trial, but I will certainly win on appeal.
wtf? doesnt the law state that knowledge is required?
The law matters not. The Constitution is void in CA. If you are a law-abiding gun owner, you can and will be violated by the government in every way possible, not just against the 2A.
 

ConsideringOC

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
51
Location
San Diego, California, USA
imported post

dirtykoala wrote:
Theseus wrote:
ConditionThree wrote:

That isn't entirely true.

I don't have the burden of proof, they do. From the last DA they were trying to argue strict liability, meaning no knowledge or intent is required. . . if I break it I am guilty. They may win that argument, they may not. As mentioned before, I will likely lose at trial, but I will certainly win on appeal.
wtf? doesnt the law state that knowledge is required?
why do you think they post those school zone signs. So drivers, who have to know what signs mean, know where they are.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

I never realized those were school zone signs. Apparently I'm a little dense.
 
Top