opencarrybilly
Regular Member
imported post
1894cfan wrote:
1894cfan wrote:
I would like to know more.
-
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.
-
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.
Mercury News: 74-year-old San Jose, CA man arrested for carrying firearm near school
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
cato wrote:
Don't get me wrong I am not encouraging folks to break the law....and they should OC more with more knowledge. I still feel OC or UOC'ing in Cal. is not going to hurt the cause if you are doing it within the boundaries of the law.
You are right it is a minefeild the legal system is broken. But all judges to my knowledge including those in California take oaths to uphold the constitution of U.S. seems like many (like our politicians too) have forgotten this and get caught up in legal semantics.
cato wrote:
Don't get me wrong I am not encouraging folks to break the law....and they should OC more with more knowledge. I still feel OC or UOC'ing in Cal. is not going to hurt the cause if you are doing it within the boundaries of the law.
You are right it is a minefeild the legal system is broken. But all judges to my knowledge including those in California take oaths to uphold the constitution of U.S. seems like many (like our politicians too) have forgotten this and get caught up in legal semantics.
M
McX
Guest
imported post
i swear, i hear about another fine upstanding citizen putting the heat on an Open Carrier........yep, them old men are a real threat to society!
i swear, i hear about another fine upstanding citizen putting the heat on an Open Carrier........yep, them old men are a real threat to society!
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
cato wrote:
cato wrote:
this should require some further explanation. Did a fellow OCer call the police? Why would the OCer call the media to begin with? Was Fontana only detained, informed, then released afterwards?
Nutczak
Regular Member
imported post
tekshogun wrote:
I am in full disagreement with your statement.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to rob a bank, But it does state that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
tekshogun wrote:
I am in full disagreement with your statement.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have a right to rob a bank, But it does state that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
M
McX
Guest
imported post
nutzak?! i'll be damned, your still alive ol buddy? good to hear from you. anyway, we gotta put an end to this school zone crap. gettin so a body can't move about freely out there. talk about being infringed!
nutzak?! i'll be damned, your still alive ol buddy? good to hear from you. anyway, we gotta put an end to this school zone crap. gettin so a body can't move about freely out there. talk about being infringed!
lockman
State Researcher
imported post
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. 3/4th of the state legislatures agreed that the rights referred to in the bill of rights should be applied to the states. Does not follow the original intent as to anly a limit on federal powers alone, but the 14A was brought about through the proper amendment process and is here to stay awhile. We can always repeal it.
The 14th amendment is part of the Constitution. 3/4th of the state legislatures agreed that the rights referred to in the bill of rights should be applied to the states. Does not follow the original intent as to anly a limit on federal powers alone, but the 14A was brought about through the proper amendment process and is here to stay awhile. We can always repeal it.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
Blkwdw86 wrote:
Who said he is being prosecuted in Federal Court?
He was arrested for violating CA Penal Code 626.9,California's very ownGun Free School Zone Act. Because the 2A hasn't yet been incorporated to state and local governments, this law cannot currently be argued before the court to be "unconstitutional".
Theseus was charged and recently convicted for violating this very same law, PC 626.9, and is currently awaiting appeal.
Blkwdw86 wrote:
Who said he is being prosecuted in Federal Court?
He was arrested for violating CA Penal Code 626.9,California's very ownGun Free School Zone Act. Because the 2A hasn't yet been incorporated to state and local governments, this law cannot currently be argued before the court to be "unconstitutional".
Theseus was charged and recently convicted for violating this very same law, PC 626.9, and is currently awaiting appeal.
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
This right here is a perfect example why you NEVER get legal advice from a police officer. They are not experts on the law, and what they give is OPINION ONLY.
Do your own research.
Know what thelaw says.
Know what the case law says.
Mike wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14020859?nclick_check=1
SNIP
74-year-old San Jose man arrested for carrying firearm near school
By Lisa Fernandez
Posted:12/17/2009 05:38:44 PM PST
Updated:12/17/2009 05:38:45 PM PST
After his brothers watched a newscast about the national movement to carry guns in public, they told Sherman "Tony" Fontano he could do that himself. Two San Jose police officers also said it would be OK.
So this week, Fontano, 74, put his unloaded .357 Magnum into his waistband and took a walk with his girlfriend.
But he was soon surrounded by police who had their own guns drawn. Unfortunately, nobody had mentioned it is against the law in California to walk with a firearm near your neighborhood school.
"I just can't see what I did wrong,'' Fontano told the Mercury News on Thursday. "I'm not a member of anything. I'm not political. I just wish the cops would have told me not to carry it near a school. This was all a total mistake.''
Fontano was arrested Monday after he and his girlfriend took a shortcut through a field at Allen at Steinbeck School. A parent spotted the gun-toting retiree and called police.
Sherman "Tony" Fontano with his dog, 'Magnum', at his San Jose home Thursday... ( Patrick Tehan )
Fontano finds himself caught up in a national controversy known as the "Open Carry Movement,'' whose supporters have been trying to convince the public that carrying a pistol in public is as normal as carrying a pen.
John Pierce, one of the co-founders of http://www.opencarry.org, said the law used to arrest Fontano is one of many arbitrary statutes that violate the constitutional right to bear arms. . . .
This right here is a perfect example why you NEVER get legal advice from a police officer. They are not experts on the law, and what they give is OPINION ONLY.
Do your own research.
Know what thelaw says.
Know what the case law says.
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
cato wrote:
cato, how do you know this? Was it you?
It's bad enough that the ground squirrel in my yard is a CGN informant but a CA OCDO traitorous SOB is more than we should have put up with.
Edit: Instead of ratting him out, why didn't the scumbag informant give him a pamphlet and school him onUOC?
cato wrote:
cato, how do you know this? Was it you?
It's bad enough that the ground squirrel in my yard is a CGN informant but a CA OCDO traitorous SOB is more than we should have put up with.
Edit: Instead of ratting him out, why didn't the scumbag informant give him a pamphlet and school him onUOC?
Decoligny
Regular Member
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
I think what Cato was trying to say is this:
1. A CA OCDO member contacted the media to do a story on UOC.
2. The story ran on TV and lots of people saw it, including the 74 year old gentleman's brothers.
3. They told the man that UOC was legal.
4. He UOCed without proper research and going only on the opinion of 2 LEOs.
5. A parent of one of the school children saw a MWAG on School property and called the cops.
6. UOCer was arrested.
So, it was a CA OCDO member who contacted the MEDIA, which had the end result of this man being arrested.
That being said, there is no "traitorous SOB", just an unfortunate series of events.
yelohamr wrote:
I think what Cato was trying to say is this:
1. A CA OCDO member contacted the media to do a story on UOC.
2. The story ran on TV and lots of people saw it, including the 74 year old gentleman's brothers.
3. They told the man that UOC was legal.
4. He UOCed without proper research and going only on the opinion of 2 LEOs.
5. A parent of one of the school children saw a MWAG on School property and called the cops.
6. UOCer was arrested.
So, it was a CA OCDO member who contacted the MEDIA, which had the end result of this man being arrested.
That being said, there is no "traitorous SOB", just an unfortunate series of events.
joseprissa
Campaign Veteran
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
This is True its the one barrier thats got us by the neck. We cant open carry without having fear of going into a school zone.
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
Decoligny wrote:
Decoligny wrote:
He should of said what he meant...well maybe he did.
bad_ace
Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
imported post
yelohamr wrote:
Cato is referring to me. I was interviewed for a story on open carry by a local news agency that has a large audience in northern CA, (including some other states through affiliation).
I weighed the options and thought it was still a good idea to let the TV watching masses know that UOC in CA was legal. It has drummed up a lot of interest in the bay area. Many more people are now looking at UOC as an option for selfdefense. These same people will be needed to fight bad laws in the future.
I also accepted that there would be a handful of people arrested for UOC shortly after it aired. I expected young enthusiastic people to over look a minor detail and get popped for it.
I stand by my decision to talk to the media about Open Carry.
I believe the reason I get a nod or wave from local LEOs now is because of UOCing daily, meet ups, educational material, and the media.
yelohamr wrote:
Cato is referring to me. I was interviewed for a story on open carry by a local news agency that has a large audience in northern CA, (including some other states through affiliation).
I weighed the options and thought it was still a good idea to let the TV watching masses know that UOC in CA was legal. It has drummed up a lot of interest in the bay area. Many more people are now looking at UOC as an option for selfdefense. These same people will be needed to fight bad laws in the future.
I also accepted that there would be a handful of people arrested for UOC shortly after it aired. I expected young enthusiastic people to over look a minor detail and get popped for it.
I stand by my decision to talk to the media about Open Carry.
I believe the reason I get a nod or wave from local LEOs now is because of UOCing daily, meet ups, educational material, and the media.
Rusty
Regular Member
imported post
Bad_Ace,
You did a good job with that interview. It is important to get this information out there. If someone decides to not take the most basic steps before walking around with a firearm strapped to their hip, they are going to end up in this guys situation.
I do hope the DA takes pity on this poor fool, but he is a fool.
Bad_Ace,
You did a good job with that interview. It is important to get this information out there. If someone decides to not take the most basic steps before walking around with a firearm strapped to their hip, they are going to end up in this guys situation.
I do hope the DA takes pity on this poor fool, but he is a fool.
imported post
There is a difference between
1. Ignorance/Mistake of the law. (I did not know it isillegal to carry in a school zone).
2. Ignorance/Mistake of fact. (I did not know I was in a school zone).
3. Senility (I don't know who I am.)
Defending yourself under 2 is always better than 1. This poor old guy talks too much. There is no reason that an attorney cannot argue in good faith that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states (via the 14th).
There is a difference between
1. Ignorance/Mistake of the law. (I did not know it isillegal to carry in a school zone).
2. Ignorance/Mistake of fact. (I did not know I was in a school zone).
3. Senility (I don't know who I am.)
Defending yourself under 2 is always better than 1. This poor old guy talks too much. There is no reason that an attorney cannot argue in good faith that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states (via the 14th).
yelohamr
Regular Member
imported post
bad_ace wrote:
bad_ace wrote:
Thank you, I stand corrected.
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
There is now a poll about this:
http://forums.mercurynews.com/poll/should-californians-be-able-to-carry-unloaded-gun-near-a-school
GO VOTE!
There is now a poll about this:
http://forums.mercurynews.com/poll/should-californians-be-able-to-carry-unloaded-gun-near-a-school
GO VOTE!
Rusty
Regular Member
imported post
I don't know if it is just us voting but the poll question is:
Should Californians be able to carry an unloaded gun near a school?
73% say yes (127 votes)
27% say no (47 votes)
I don't know if it is just us voting but the poll question is:
Should Californians be able to carry an unloaded gun near a school?
73% say yes (127 votes)
27% say no (47 votes)
MudCamper
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Rusty wrote:
Rusty wrote:
The poll is also posted over on CalGuns. That's how I learned about it.