usmarbws2005
New member
imported post
Hey Everyone,
I am new here, but after reading much information on the California laws regarding "Open Carry", I am pretty up to speed on this now.
It seems that there has been some legislation introduced that I have not read about until now regarding an increase in "School Zone" distance. The current law under penal code 626.9 which it seems Theseus is being charged with, lists a distance of within 1000' of school property. A new amendment to this, introduced by Assemblyman Ted Lieu(Democrat) of the 53rd Assembly district on Feb 25, 2009, is AB 668 which would increase the distance considered a "School Zone" to 1500'.
I have not seen any result on this issue or any further action except for some other amendments to the language and lastly a submission to the Committee for review.
Please email your district Senator along with the governor and let them know that this is a law that is simply going to restrict legal law abiding citizens rights when the ones who could and would commit crimes on school property are not going to follow the rules either way. This will only deter law abiding citizens rather than the criminals.
There is no need for this!
To read the proposed ammendment go to: http://www.totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=9157
Bill in its entirety:
AB 668 (Lieu)
Firearms: gun-free school zones.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 668, as amended, Lieu. Firearms: gun-free school zones.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that it is an
offense for any person to possess a firearm in a place that the
person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it
is with the written permission of the school district superintendent,
his or her designee, or equivalent school authority. Existing law
defines "school zone" for these purposes as an area in, or on the
grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in
kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of
1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.
Existing law provides an exception to the prohibition for handguns
that are in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor
vehicle.
This
This bill would revise this exception to instead except from
the prohibition a handgun that is in a locked container inside a
motor vehicle or that is unloaded and inside a locked trunk of a
motor vehicle. The bill would extend that distance
increase the size of the zone to include
the area up to 1,500 feet from the grounds of the public or
private school. The bill would create an exception to the school
zone firearms possession prohibition for firearms that are otherwise
lawfully possessed or transported in a vehicle on a
driveway or parking lot of a school, as specified.
By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Hey Everyone,
I am new here, but after reading much information on the California laws regarding "Open Carry", I am pretty up to speed on this now.
It seems that there has been some legislation introduced that I have not read about until now regarding an increase in "School Zone" distance. The current law under penal code 626.9 which it seems Theseus is being charged with, lists a distance of within 1000' of school property. A new amendment to this, introduced by Assemblyman Ted Lieu(Democrat) of the 53rd Assembly district on Feb 25, 2009, is AB 668 which would increase the distance considered a "School Zone" to 1500'.
I have not seen any result on this issue or any further action except for some other amendments to the language and lastly a submission to the Committee for review.
Please email your district Senator along with the governor and let them know that this is a law that is simply going to restrict legal law abiding citizens rights when the ones who could and would commit crimes on school property are not going to follow the rules either way. This will only deter law abiding citizens rather than the criminals.
There is no need for this!
To read the proposed ammendment go to: http://www.totalcapitol.com/?bill_id=9157
Bill in its entirety:
AB 668 (Lieu)
Firearms: gun-free school zones.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 668, as amended, Lieu. Firearms: gun-free school zones.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that it is an
offense for any person to possess a firearm in a place that the
person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it
is with the written permission of the school district superintendent,
his or her designee, or equivalent school authority. Existing law
defines "school zone" for these purposes as an area in, or on the
grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in
kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of
1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.
Existing law provides an exception to the prohibition for handguns
that are in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor
vehicle.
This
This bill would revise this exception to instead except from
the prohibition a handgun that is in a locked container inside a
motor vehicle or that is unloaded and inside a locked trunk of a
motor vehicle. The bill would extend that distance
increase the size of the zone to include
the area up to 1,500 feet from the grounds of the public or
private school. The bill would create an exception to the school
zone firearms possession prohibition for firearms that are otherwise
lawfully possessed or transported in a vehicle on a
driveway or parking lot of a school, as specified.
By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
