• 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.

OC in Apartments within 1000 ft of school

W

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

I have already searched the forum and the internet and this topic, in detail, has not been discussed. I will be very specific in my questions so that I can get an accurate response.

As the title suggests, I live in an apartment complex (non-gated ie; open to the public) within 1000 ft of a school. Defined by law, I can OC on private property and common areas within a school zone as long as it is my primary residence.

Even if my property line, technically, stops at the surrounding walls of my particular unit, my landords property, which I am authorized to be on (obviously), extends out to the surrounding property(ies) and to the sidewalk. I should be safe from the "1000 feet from school" as long as I do not leave the apartment complex.

I would really like this to be addressed. None of my neighbors nor my landlord object to me OCing. As a matter of fact, most of them commend me on having the "balls" to openly wear a firearm for the BGs to see. They hope it would be a deterent to future issues my apartment complex has had in the recent past.

Since I've learned I am just within the 1000 ft range, I have stopped OCing in the complex. To my suprise, many neighbors have actually questioned me as to why I no longer OC in the complex. I explained I'm researching the laws a bit further. I have yet to find anything that discusses OCing in common areas within 1000 ft of a school.
 
mjones

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
imported post

According to the letter of the law, private propertyis an exemption from the GFSZ (PC 626.9). However, one member of this forum (Theseus) is currently being prosecuted for being upon private property, but while in a public place.

Please donate to his defense fund :)
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

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

CA_Libertarian would know the case law. I think CA court cases have ruled that 'private' property with 'public' access are not exempt from the 1000 ft law. Only here in the PRK is private property not really private. At least for now I would refrain from UOC inyour apt.complex until you can find and read the case law. And follow Theseus' case closely.
 
T

Theseus

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

:celebrate You go girl! I mean. . . . Guy!

Firstly, you are technically in the good in the apartment complex as long as you stay off the sidewalk.

This is what is illegal:

626.9 (b) 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 (f).
Click to expand...
This is one of the exemptions:
626.9(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
Click to expand...
Here is case law that makes a sidewalk NOT private property in 626.9:

People v Tapia:
The property in question was subject to an easement of way, owned, apparently, by a public entity. Thus, any property interest owned by Tapia's father was not of a sort that a reasonable citizen would understand to be private.
Click to expand...
In my case, the DA has argued successfully that Tapia should be extended to include the parking lot of the laundry mat because it is "open to the public".

It is not clear yet how this will effect anything. For the time being you are technically in the clear.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

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

Theseus is correct...technically. But unless you are willing to battle the system (ie major $$,$$$ and possibly a loss of your rights), consider school gun-free zones "red-hot" zones and stay clear. Just my opinion.
 
T

Theseus

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

coolusername is a little more cautious than I would be. Some people don't have the nerve to take a chance.

I say you are perfectly safe on your apartment complex's property, because in my case the argument was that the parking lot was open for use by the general public. Even if my case became case law your apartment is not open to the general public and thus still safe.
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

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

Theseus wrote:
Even if my case became case law your apartment is not open to the general public and thus still safe.
Click to expand...
How is it not open to the general public? It's not gated and in the original post he says it's "open to the public". Is there some nuance I'm missing?

Just to throw in my two cents, I'm siding with coolusername2007 here due to Theseus' case and due to People v. Overturf which declared some instances of private property (property open to the public) to be a public place.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

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

Theseus wrote:
coolusername is a little more cautious than I would be. Some people don't have the nerve to take a chance.

I say you are perfectly safe on your apartment complex's property, because in my case the argument was that the parking lot was open for use by the general public. Even if my case became case law your apartment is not open to the general public and thus still safe.
Click to expand...
Risk taking is great. I'm arisk taker. Risk takers tend to be more successful than non-risk takers.I think of myself asan informed risk taker, which is to say I'm not a gambler. And I happen to think that UOC'ing in a gun-free school carnage zone is gambling. That is until case law is on our side, right now I don't think it is. And losing your gun rights for 10 years plus possible jail timedoesn't appeal to me.
 
T

Theseus

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
Theseus wrote:
Even if my case became case law your apartment is not open to the general public and thus still safe.
Click to expand...
How is it not open to the general public? It's not gated and in the original post he says it's "open to the public". Is there some nuance I'm missing?

Just to throw in my two cents, I'm siding with coolusername2007 here due to Theseus' case and due to People v. Overturf which declared some instances of private property (property open to the public) to be a public place.
Click to expand...
First coolusername, I was not trying to imply that you are a coward or anything personal, just so you know.

Overturf was about 12031:
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
Click to expand...
Code:
There is a rule that controls here:
When the Legislature uses materially different language in statutory provisions addressing the same subject or related subjects, the normal inference is that the Legislature intended a difference in meaning.- People v. Trevino (2001)
Click to expand...
As quoted above 626.9 does not use the words "public place". This fact indicates the legislature knew and intentionally left these words out.

People v. Tapia
That the Legislature did not necessarily intend section 626.9 to be governed by the "public place" analysis is also suggested by the exception for places of business. It is readily apparent that a great many places of business are open to common use and enjoyment by members of the public. Nonetheless, section 626.9's exception expressly encompasses places of business.
Click to expand...
Private property can be a public place for the means of 12031, but not 626.9.

The apartment building is not "open to the public" as the parking lot of a business is. It may be a public place in the fact that it is not fenced, but that does not matter for 626.9

The people that are pushing my case are doing it to try and scare other OC'ers into not OC'ing because of the risk. Don't let them win because of me! Stay the course and be cautious, but don't give them the satisfaction of surrendering.

I was cautious and knew the law. I was in the right. In the long run I will win my case because I am innocent and have the law on my side. Sure it will cost me time and money, but the fight needs to be fought.
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

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

Theseus, no offense taken. It takes more than that to get my goat. :cool:

And again you are correct, and I agree with you...you are technically correct. And I agree that the OP should be able to UOCthroughout his apt. complex property. But in this instance with this particular law and gray area of application in the PRK, I would choose to err on the side of caution.

For the OP and others in his situation, the letter of the law is on your side, however the path may not be full of roses. And for what its worth, personally I wouldn't involve the school super for permission...free men don't ask for permission.
 
W

wolfetundra

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
64
Location
Redding, California, USA
imported post

Wow alot more replies than I had expected. Thank you everyone for your suggestions. Now the whole reason I asked this is because, from my understanding, you can live across the street from a school and stand in your lawn OCing. The limitations to "accessable to the public" simply says you can't be concealed or loaded. There is no law, that I know of, that says you can't UOC in an area "accessable to the public."


If that is true, then the same would be for apartments. As my property line, technically, ends at my walls, my landlords property extends to the curb.


Can someone give a definitive answer?
 
T

Theseus

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

wolfetundra wrote:
Wow alot more replies than I had expected. Thank you everyone for your suggestions. Now the whole reason I asked this is because, from my understanding, you can live across the street from a school and stand in your lawn OCing. The limitations to "accessable to the public" simply says you can't be concealed or loaded. There is no law, that I know of, that says you can't UOC in an area "accessable to the public."


If that is true, then the same would be for apartments. As my property line, technically, ends at my walls, my landlords property extends to the curb.


Can someone give a definitive answer?
Click to expand...
You need to read the replies more closely. Property line for 626.9 does not end at the curb. The sidewalk is not private property according to case law and is not exempt.

Not trying to be mean, but we can't spoon feed it.

Technically you are in the clear to UOC in your apartment complex, but you need to be aware that since "private property" is not defined in 626.9 or any other PC or related case law they can if so motivated use it to charge you.

They may win, they may lose, and they may never try. It is a personal decision YOU need to make if you are willing to take the personal risk.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
CA_Libertarian would know the case law. I think CA court cases have ruled that 'private' property with 'public' access are not exempt from the 1000 ft law. Only here in the PRK is private property not really private. At least for now I would refrain from UOC inyour apt.complex until you can find and read the case law. And follow Theseus' case closely.
Click to expand...
In Theseus's case they are trying to make law in the courts, not enforce laws that are on the books.

The case in question is "People v. Overturf" and the law that it applied to was PC 12031 (loaded firearm).

PC 12031 has the specific language "in any public place" written into it. This was ruled to mean any area that the public can access. Even your private property. If the public can walk across you lawn to ring your doorbell, then your front lawn is "a public place".

PC 626.9 does not have the "in any public place" language written anywhere in the text of the law. It does have a private property exemption written into it however.

The DA and the Judge in Theseus's case are trying to apply the People v. Overturf ruling on priave property = public place to PC 626.9, which is unequivically legislating from the bench.
 
Decoligny

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

wolfetundra wrote:
So I can be arrested for OCing in a school zone even though I'm in my apartment complex on private property?
Click to expand...
You can be arrested for wearing a green shirt on an odd numbered Thursday, and the cops, DAs and Judges can make your life hell for as long as it takes to get thrown out of court, or overturned on appeal. Just go to CalGuns.net and read about BlackWaterOps to see how screwed up the system can be in CA.

With OC, there are certain cops, DAs and Judges, that think that they should be applying their world view by making law in the courtroom.

You need to have a full understanding of the Penal Code, the Case Law, and the disposition of you local law "enforcement" officers.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
2, 4, 5 A defender wrote:
go to the super of the district, explain your situation, bring a pre-written letter allowing you to carry in the zone
Click to expand...
Has anyone evergotten a letter of permission from a school super?
Click to expand...

maybe permission to carry in the zone wouldnt fly!

just try to get permission to carry in the public areas of the apt. complex.

really thats all you really want to do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top