626.9 Exemption request formation

imported post

greg36f wrote:

The uoc movement is a movement for a reason. If we weren't taking these steps, this would be called the UOC still water.



I agree, but a movement must have an achievable and stated goal.....and there should be movement towards that goal.....Not conflict and wasted effort that does not further movement towards that goal...

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum greg36f, but you are starting off on the wrong foot.

First, I don't really desire a CCW. Not carrying a concealed firearm is hot enough, especially in summer months.

As for requesting permission, yes we know we will get rejected. Yes, many of us know we can not get a CCW, but unless we apply and get denied we don't have legal standing in court to challenge the law on a constitutional basis.

To not have standing is the court saying "you didn't try, so you were not infringed". They will throw those defendants out of court. The recent SCOTUS Heller decision started with some 5 people bringing suit and all but Heller were removed because they didn't have "standing".

With this effort we will create a circumstance where perhaps hundreds of people will have "standing" showing the full scope of the corruption and anti-right sentiment there is in California as it pertains to guns.

Stick around and learn a little more before you go flying off the wheel all mad at us. They are already trying to expand the school zones and make it even more illegal to lawfully carry a firearms for defensive purposes and we will not let it happen by quietly waiting in the night.

imported post

Welcome to the forum greg36f, but you are starting off on the wrong foot.

First, I don't really desire a CCW. Not carrying a concealed firearm is hot enough, especially in summer months.

As for requesting permission, yes we know we will get rejected. Yes, many of us know we can not get a CCW, but unless we apply and get denied we don't have legal standing in court to challenge the law on a constitutional basis.

To not have standing is the court saying "you didn't try, so you were not infringed". They will throw those defendants out of court. The recent SCOTUS Heller decision started with some 5 people bringing suit and all but Heller were removed because they didn't have "standing".

With this effort we will create a circumstance where perhaps hundreds of people will have "standing" showing the full scope of the corruption and anti-right sentiment there is in California as it pertains to guns.

Stick around and learn a little more before you go flying off the wheel all mad at us. They are already trying to expand the school zones and make it even more illegal to lawfully carry a firearms for defensive purposes and we will not let it happen by quietly waiting in the night.

I do understand your position and I am in no way mad, against anyone’s right to carry openly or against guns in any way. I just think that the school issue can really come back to bite the open carry movement. We/you/I should push in every direction possible, but I think that where schools and kids are concerned people get REAL sensitive and very protective. The backlash and possible negative publicity of people wanting to carry gun near a school, "I the very faces of our children for gosh sakes"does not outweigh the gain that will not be had.

No school official will ever give permission and no politician however friendly to the open carry cause will ever back this. Kids/guns,,,,,bad mix in most peoples eyes. This includes the eyes of the courts, politicians and public officials.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU OR IT SHOULD NOT BE A RIGHT! I am just saying that there is more harm than good to be had with this. File for open carry just to denied, walk into as many stores as possible just to test the waters, go into public to build support and explain why people should care about your rights even if they don't agree, have fund raisers for political action/legal support. All of this is good. Mixing kids and guns is a third rail....Touch it and you gonna get burnt. That's just reality.

All this being said, I want to thank people (so far) for being courteous. I know that many, if not most of you disagree with my stand on this. I have been 'lurking" here for a while now and I have seen many shall we call them "aggressive" responses.

Again, thank you for letting me have my say.....

imported post

I think it would be valuable to be a little bit legally threatening, something along the lines of this:
Now it may not be entirely true, but they won't know that. And it will give them some pause to think. Plus post-Nordyke-en-banc it may actually be true.

imported post

Asking to carry a gun near a school is really pushing the edge when we really should be working near the center.

Click to expand...

First off, welcome to the forums. It's always good to see new faces and get new ideas being expressed.

Secondly, I have no desire to work toward the center of any rights I have. Things like "free speech zones," or "gun-free zones," or warrantless searches are not things I will compromise on, they are fundamentally wrong and they cannot be tolerated in any form. One of the primary reasons I'm not a big NRA guy is because I feel like they compromise too much. While compromise might sometimes get things to be less bad, my rights aren't something I'm willing to compromise on. Give me liberty, or give me death. There is no middle-ground there.

Thirdly, for some of us in large cities, we're surrounded by schools. Try to walk from one end of San Francisco to the other end without going through a school zone. The more dense the population, the more dense the schools, the more restrictions are placed on the liberties of the inhabitants. If the law said something more reasonable, like stay a block away, then at least I could get around with some planning. But it's a kilometer in all directions.

And what I find the most idiotic about 626.9 is that according to state law, I can bring a registered "assault weapon" or an AR-15 with an off-list lower right up to the property line of a school. So what is 626.9 about? Is it about protecting kids or is it about the disarming of lawful abiding citizens?

imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:

Asking to carry a gun near a school is really pushing the edge when we really should be working near the center.

Click to expand...

First off, welcome to the forums. It's always good to see new faces and get new ideas being expressed.

Secondly, I have no desire to work toward the center of any rights I have. Things like "free speech zones," or "gun-free zones," or warrantless searches are not things I will compromise on, they are fundamentally wrong and they cannot be tolerated in any form. One of the primary reasons I'm not a big NRA guy is because I feel like they compromise too much. While compromise might sometimes get things to be less bad, my rights aren't something I'm willing to compromise on. Give me liberty, or give me death. There is no middle-ground there.

Thirdly, for some of us in large cities, we're surrounded by schools. Try to walk from one end of San Francisco to the other end without going through a school zone. The more dense the population, the more dense the schools, the more restrictions are placed on the liberties of the inhabitants. If the law said something more reasonable, like stay a block away, then at least I could get around with some planning. But it's a kilometer in all directions.

And what I find the most idiotic about 626.9 is that according to state law, I can bring a registered "assault weapon" or an AR-15 with an off-list lower right up to the property line of a school. So what is 626.9 about? Is it about protecting kids or is it about the disarming of lawful abiding citizens?

Click to expand...

I agree that the law is unjust and unmanageable. I just think that it can be changed or overcome in a way other than writing to schools. More of an overall approach that pushes back on a multitude of gun restrictions with that one being included.

When I said that "we should be working near the center" I did not mean that we should be any less aggressive or active than we need to be.....Push and push hard but in the right direction. Find the weakness then attack there.....Guns/kids....Very strong area there......Lot's of very strong opinions and emotional issues.....attack there and you will probably do more damage than good......

Public opinion is against you there,,,,,,,,I know if is easy to say "heck with the public", and "most of the public are sheepies that get what government and rules they deserve", but don't forget that the public votes, makes laws and "public opinion does matter". Is that not ONE of the reasons that when we have open carry events where we dress well, try to appear non threatening, are willing and eager to talk to people who ask questions and often carry literature supporting our point. Wewant to look like normal guys and gals just exercising our rights as an American citizen.

Thanks’ for welcoming me to the sight. I have been lurking here for while and always enjoy hearing (or seeing) other peoples opinions.

imported post

greg36f wrote:

When I said that "we should be working near the center" I did not mean that we should be any less aggressive or active than we need to be.....Push and push hard but in the right direction. Find the weakness then attack there.....Guns/kids....Very strong area there......Lot's of very strong opinions and emotional issues.....attack there and you will probably do more damage than good......

Click to expand...

You make many excellent points, which I mostly agree with. The quoted section above about not going after 626.9 makes sense to me if I was running a company or something. I definitely would try to steer clear from the controversy which may surround the rights violation that is 626.9. I certainly agree that there would be many strong feelings and parents would be up in arms and saying preposterous things and getting really emotional.

My primary purpose with the whole open carry movement is to get our rights back. Any violation of our rights will be met with equal resistance from me. All of these restrictions are equally immoral and equally unacceptable. I don't want anybody to get the idea that I am okay with gun-free school zones, because I am certainly not. So for me, I will push in all directions because all infringements are equally unacceptable.

Now having said that I still understand that there are strategic ways of going about these things, which is why the CalGuns Foundation has my full support with the way they are choosing to go about winning our rights back. Personally I just want people to know about the restrictions of our rights, because I would hope that even in this state, that most people don't want their rights taken away.

imported post

N6ATF wrote:

dirtykoala wrote:

looks prety good. we should also start forming a reply to their denial. i dont know if we want to be too agressive, but it should remind them that it is now documented that they denied the right to self preservation, ifyou or a family member areattacked while in a school zone....

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if a denial reply is necessary, especially if a line is put in the request to the effect of:

"If this law-abiding citizen is denied, the next communication you can expect to receive will be from my process server, in the form of a lawsuit of X or Y nature."

Click to expand...

MudCamper wrote:

I think it would be valuable to be a little bit legally threatening, something along the lines of this:

Be aware, that if you do not grant lawful citizens permission to carry in school zones, that you open yourself up to civil liability in the event that any crime occurs anywhere near your schools and your denial prevented a lawful person from defending herself.
​

Now it may not be entirely true, but they won't know that. And it will give them some pause to think. Plus post-Nordyke-en-banc it may actually be true.

Click to expand...

That's better.

imported post

I don't see any harm done by putting school superintendents on notice. If they want the power and authority, which they have right now, then they need to know there is responsibililty and liability that goes with it.

I'll try adding some edits soon. IMHO the letter needs to be tactfu, and respectful, yet it needs to also be forceful in the fact that we intend to hold them liable. Finally, a letter from a couple dozen of us will not have any real impact, we need to get our numbers up and make sure at least a couple hundred are mailed in.

I know I'm speaking to choir on this but I think it important to just mention again. While it may be true that the 2nd is not incorporated in this state (yet) that does not mean we do not have the RKBA, it merely means its not state protected. It is important to never surrender your rights regardless of whether or not the state protects them. Carry On!

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

So not one of you has contributed to the 626.9 letter and it is open to edit by anyone...

Click to expand...

I did some serious editing. I saved it and everything, then posted it here (so I could have a copy of my work in case someone changed it after me).

imported post

greg36f wrote:

No school official will ever give permission and no politician however friendly to the open carry cause will ever back this. Kids/guns,,,,,bad mix in most peoples eyes. This includes the eyes of the courts, politicians and public officials.

Click to expand...

Never say "never". California has some areas that are populated densely with conservatives. I personally know several teachers and school administrators that are pro-gun.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU OR IT SHOULD NOT BE A RIGHT! I am just saying that there is more harm than good to be had with this.

Click to expand...

When the open carry movement first began, this is exactly the argument we faced. People said we would be seen as "crazy" and "nut jobs" if we carried exposed anywhere in public. We were told that nothing good could come of it, and that we'd be assaulted by gang members, arrested and/or shot by trigger-happy LEOs, and generally incite panic amongst the sheeple.

None of this is true (with a couple exceptions of arrest).

I appreciate your contribution to this conversation, and hope you're not discouraged by the way some react to your ideas. We've had a long, uphill battle here the past few years, and it's discouraging when 'pro-gun' people stop by and tell us we're doing it wrong.

To borrow a phrase from Penn Jillette, "this ain't our first goat ****." We've learned that all the hype about the sheeples' anti-gun hysteria is mostly news-media-incited, and generally doesn't jive with reality. You'd be surprised how normal most people really are.

So, welcome to the forum, and please keep speaking your mind, even if you're wrong.

imported post

[sarcasm on] The Kalifonia lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, placed a provision in the code to allowanyone with written permission from the school superintendentto carry within school zones (which, by the way, significantly infringes upon my open carry walks). I am sure that they wanted to make sure that there was a way for law-abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment right. [sarcasm off]

So, if we don't ask, then they can say, "You must not have cared, because we would not have withheld our permission if you asked."

Without asking and having our request turned down,we have no grievance.


[Edit spelling.]

imported post

Its death by a thousand cuts. I've said this before over on CGF and I'll say it again here. Everybody wants to believe the 2A is not a right in CA. I say WRONG! It is a right in CA and everywhere in this country. CA may not recognize it as a protected right, but it is a right nonetheless.This isn't just semantics, it is necessary to secure a free people. Furthermore, and here's the kicker...THEY KNOW IT. If this were not the case then why didn't they just ban guns altogether on the fateful day in '67? Why limit the loaded open carry to unloaded open carry? Why not just say no open carry? Because they can't...and THEY KNOW IT.

So it is thesame for the 1000' mark. Why have a provision in there at all to ask for permission? Two reasons. 1. Control: its part of their mindset, they have to control you, they must control you, theycannot resist the temptation to control you, it consumes them. They must wield power over you by forcing you to ask for permission, even beg for permission, it feeds their egos sure, but I believe its even far more sinister and dangerous than that. 2. Because that's their loophole, that's their way out, yet they still accomplish their control goal. Of course they have no intention of permitting anybody to carry within the zone, but when that denial comes along, its not their fault because its not their decision, its the school supers decision. They remain blameless while they achieve and satisfytheir dark, limitless hunger for control.