• 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.

Carry near school when they are closed?

C

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
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.
 
C

camsoup

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
167
Location
Red Bluff, California, USA
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:
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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 [b]heroin[/b], 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.
 
K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
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:
Click to expand...

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.

:banghead:
 
T

Theseus

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

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 
N

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Then there's jury nullification. Non-existent children don't need to be "protected" (exposed to greater likelihood of criminal harm).
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top