Ranchero
Regular Member
imported post
Any advise on UOC while ridin' yer horse within city limits?
Any advise on UOC while ridin' yer horse within city limits?
This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
Just to clarify, are you talking about what wewd mentioned? The transportation thing?We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
demnogis wrote:Just to clarify, are you talking about what wewd mentioned? The transportation thing?We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
demnogis wrote:We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
No were not.
626.9 does not apply to long guns.
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.
Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
This is from the 1996 GFSZ Actdemnogis wrote:We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
No were not.
626.9 does not apply to long guns.
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.
Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
Decoligny wrote:This is from the 1996 GFSZ Actdemnogis wrote:We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
No were not.
626.9 does not apply to long guns.
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.
Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
preempting or preventing a State or local government
from enacting a statute establishing gun-free
school zones as provided in this subsection.
Since CA has its own GFSZ act, the federal one cannot preempt it, therefore since CA only has a restriction on concealable firearms, I don't see how the federal law can apply to us in CA. Transporting long arms looks to be OK to me!
That is the correct interpretation of the wording in my opinion. But really, it doesn't matter because the federal GFSZ law is unconstitutional.So, what you are saying is, if California made a law saying it is illegal to carry a gun within 10 feet of school property, that law makes the Federal Law null and void in the 990 feet beyond the 10 foot line? I don't think so.
What this does, is give the state the right to go above and beyond the Federal Law. The state recently tried to increase the GFSZ to 1,500 feet. The Federal Law is written so that the state can make its own law more stringent than the Federal Law if they so choose. It does nothing to eliminate the areas (long guns) that the Federal Law applies to.
Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. First, although this Court has upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce, the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly those terms are defined. Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under the Court's cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.
Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearms possession in question has the requisite nexus with interstate commerce. Respondent was a local student at a local school; there is no indication that he had recently moved in interstate commerce, and there is no requirement that his possession of the firearm have any concrete tie to interstate commerce. To uphold the Government's contention that §922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 2-19.
Yes that is the way I read it.... for example CA says its OK to have a 215 card and smoke marijuana...its illegal per the feds, but they have said they will not prosecute.camsoup wrote:Decoligny wrote:This is from the 1996 GFSZ Actdemnogis wrote:We're still unsure whether 626.9 applies only to pistols (concealable firearms) or rifles too (unconcealable firearms).
No were not.
626.9 does not apply to long guns.
The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act however does apply to long guns.
Just don't get stopped by a Federal Officer if you are riding within 1,000 feet of school property.
(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
preempting or preventing a State or local government
from enacting a statute establishing gun-free
school zones as provided in this subsection.
Since CA has its own GFSZ act, the federal one cannot preempt it, therefore since CA only has a restriction on concealable firearms, I don't see how the federal law can apply to us in CA. Transporting long arms looks to be OK to me!
So, what you are saying is, if California made a law saying it is illegal to carry a gun within 10 feet of school property, that law makes the Federal Law null and void in the 990 feet beyond the 10 foot line? I don't think so.
What this does, is give the state the right to go above and beyond the Federal Law. The state recently tried to increase the GFSZ to 1,500 feet. The Federal Law is written so that the state can make its own law more stringent than the Federal Law if they so choose. It does nothing to eliminate the areas (long guns) that the Federal Law applies to.
I have read 629.6 several times. I am still having a problem understanding where it specifically excludes shotguns and long guns from the 1000 foot GFSZ unlocked. Most of the law talks about "firearms". All of the LEO training bulletins just say guns/firearms as a violation of 629.6.
This is another law that is clear as mud. I think a LEO after reading the law is going to have an easy time arresting you for cruising by a school zone with a shotgun, loaded or not.
Per the CA Court of Appeals in People v Overturf the definition of "carry" is "transport". Under current case law, these two terms are interchangeable in statute.This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
People get hung up on the word "transportation". Put the rifle in a scabbard. It's not slung over your shoulder, so you're not "carrying" it, but you are "transporting" it.
Holy COW!wewd wrote:Per the CA Court of Appeals in People v Overturf the definition of "carry" is "transport". Under current case law, these two terms are interchangeable in statute.This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.
People get hung up on the word "transportation". Put the rifle in a scabbard. It's not slung over your shoulder, so you're not "carrying" it, but you are "transporting" it.