Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Carry near school when they are closed?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    Code:
    (e) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
    apply:
    (1) "School zone" means 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.
    What I'm thinking about here is the word "providing", if a school is closed,
    and there is no one providing instruction in kindergarten or grades
    1 to 12, inclusive. Do we still have to keep our guns locked up within 1000'?

    Seems to me if they wanted guns to be kept out of the 1000' zones 24/7, 365
    they would have said.

    Code:
    (e) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
    apply:
    (1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public
    or private school which provides 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.
    Maybe Im way off base, but how I read it is that the 1000' "school zone" only
    exists when the school is providing instruction. Not when the school is
    closed and empty, therefore no instruction is being provided.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    No.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    edit!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    The CA penal code uses the word providing... the second one, I clipped and replaced the word providing with the words "which provide"











  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    642

    Post imported post

    edit!
    When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    I don't want to test it either.

    But when we have things like private property not considered private property because its open to the public, and judges trying to determine what the legislative intent was, it seems if the legislative intent was to keep guns away from school at all hours of the day they would have said "which provide" instruction.

    If the act was passed to really truly attempt to keep kids safe, then the fact they worded it the way they did actually makes sense, no guns allowed when children are present. If there are no children at the school, there is no one at the school to keep safe from our overly dangerous handguns. Kind of like the school zone speed limits, they only apply when children are present. If school is not in session, the regular speed limit applies.

    I know it may seem like a stretch, but looking at the statue the way it is worded it literally is saying that having a gun within the 1000' school zone is prohibited only while the school is providing instruction.

    At least that's my take on it.

    Maybe I will stroll past the school down the way and see how it goes, :what:

  7. #7
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Compare the 626.9 wording to Health and Safety Code 11353.1(a)(2), which involves the selling of hard drugs within 1000' of a school. Except students have to be using the school in order to qualify. Heroin dealers have more leeway than gun owners...think about that for a while.

    Code:
       (2) If the offense involved heroin, cocaine, cocaine base, or any
    analog of these substances and occurred upon, or within 1,000 feet
    of, the grounds of any public or private elementary, vocational,
    junior high, or high school, during hours that the school is open for
    classes or school-related programs, or at any time when minors are
    using the facility where the offense occurs, the defendant shall, as
    a full and separately served enhancement to any other enhancement
    provided in paragraph (3), be punished by imprisonment in the state
    prison for two years.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    camsoup wrote:
    I don't want to test it either.

    But when we have things like private property not considered private property because its open to the public, and judges trying to determine what the legislative intent was, it seems if the legislative intent was to keep guns away from school at all hours of the day they would have said "which provide" instruction.

    If the act was passed to really truly attempt to keep kids safe, then the fact they worded it the way they did actually makes sense, no guns allowed when children are present. If there are no children at the school, there is no one at the school to keep safe from our overly dangerous handguns. Kind of like the school zone speed limits, they only apply when children are present. If school is not in session, the regular speed limit applies.

    I know it may seem like a stretch, but looking at the statue the way it is worded it literally is saying that having a gun within the 1000' school zone is prohibited only while the school is providing instruction.

    At least that's my take on it.

    Maybe I will stroll past the school down the way and see how it goes, :what:
    Since part of my private property (driveway and such) is open to the public and is therefore "public", then the "public" should be equally responsible for the property tax, insurance and upkeep of my property.

    My view is that if I am paying fortax, insurance and whatelse, that is mine, and should be private.

    But this is California.



  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Nice try.

    I don't believe the school zone issue is as simple as that. The problem with the laws has for a long time been that lawyers would knit pick the words and their definitions to render a law to mean just about anything they want. That is the purpose of legislative intent.

    They have to look at the intent to give them an idea of the actual meaning.

    Although some courts have determined the "only purpose is to protect school children on their way to and from school", they ignore the fact that the law was designed to achieve that goal while attempting to "protect lawful gun owners" as stated by the bills author in a letter to the governor.

    The dangers in trying to take a law like 626.9 is in a case like mine. Every reasonable person knows what private property is but it apparently means something different in 626.9. How do they know it means something else? They didn't define it, and therefore it must mean something else.

    The DA's can play the same game you can, but they are probably better at it.

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

    Post imported post

    First, kudos for bringing a fresh idea to the table. We need more people coming up with new angles for us to explore/discuss. I certainly hope all the criticism is given and taken kindly, as I don't think anybody here wants to deter this sort of thing. Keep the ideas coming... you never know when we might strike pay dirt and find a "loophole" that we can use to our advantage.

    Now, back to our regularly scheduled criticism...

    I think this is ambiguous, at best. I think they might look to legislative intent, and maybe simply compare statutes/codes (as others have done above). More likely the judge would simply inform the jury that the statute applies at all times.

    I predict 99.9% probability that using this as a defense would fail. Definitely not a viable option as far as I can tell.
    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
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    First, kudos for bringing a fresh idea to the table. We need more people coming up with new angles for us to explore/discuss. I certainly hope all the criticism is given and taken kindly, as I don't think anybody here wants to deter this sort of thing. Keep the ideas coming... you never know when we might strike pay dirt and find a "loophole" that we can use to our advantage.

    Now, back to our regularly scheduled criticism...

    I think this is ambiguous, at best. I think they might look to legislative intent, and maybe simply compare statutes/codes (as others have done above). More likely the judge would simply inform the jury that the statute applies at all times.

    I predict 99.9% probability that using this as a defense would fail. Definitely not a viable option as far as I can tell.
    Then there's jury nullification. Non-existent children don't need to be "protected" (exposed to greater likelihood of criminal harm).

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    I have often wondered this very thing. There are so many private schools in Sebastopol, the entire town is a no-carry zone. However, evenings and weekends there are no children in those schools. If I were a wealthy man, I'd test out that "providing" language. Sadly I am not wealthy.


Posting Permissions

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