• 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.

77 Year Old, San Jose Man charged Jan. 22nd for 626.9 violation.

bad_ace

bad_ace

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
327
Location
Cupertino, California, USA
imported post

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14247410?nclick_check=1

Article:
A month ago, nearly two dozen San Jose police officers circled around Sherman "Tony" Fontano after a parent spotted the 74-year-old toting a .357 unloaded Magnum near a school.
He was arrested, questioned for hours, and told he could possibly face a felony. It's illegal to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of a school.
But Fontano, who supports the controversial Open Carry movement, is being charged with a lesser misdemeanor count — possessing a firearm within a school zone.
And Fontano is thanking his lucky stars.
"This is much, much, much better than a felony,'' Fontano said.
The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office filed the charge Jan. 6, and Fontano, who is out of custody, was told to appear in court on Feb. 22.
Fontano insists he isn't political, and just wanted to walk around with his showcase Magnum after his brothers told him about the Open Carry movement .Supporters of the movement want to persuade the public that guns should be treated as an accessory, much like a pen or iPod.
California Penal Code only prohibits concealed weapons and says nothing about if weapons are unloaded. The movement is gaining attention, pro and con, all over the country.
Fontano just didn't realize that there are certain exceptions about where you can walk around in this country with an unloaded gun.
Now, he said, he's getting educated. He bought a book and is brushing up on the law.
"Yeah, I'm going to carry my gun again,'' he said. "Just not near a school.''
______________________________________________

Edit: removed a request that was fulfilled. thx.
 
D

dirtykoala

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
644
imported post

bad_ace wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14247410?nclick_check=1

Article:
A month ago, nearly two dozen San Jose police officers circled around Sherman "Tony" Fontano after a parent spotted the 74-year-old toting a .357 unloaded Magnum near a school.
He was arrested, questioned for hours, and told he could possibly face a felony. It's illegal to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of a school.
But Fontano, who supports the controversial Open Carry movement, is being charged with a lesser misdemeanor count — possessing a firearm within a school zone.
And Fontano is thanking his lucky stars.
"This is much, much, much better than a felony,'' Fontano said.
The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office filed the charge Jan. 6, and Fontano, who is out of custody, was told to appear in court on Feb. 22.
Fontano insists he isn't political, and just wanted to walk around with his showcase Magnum after his brothers told him about the Open Carry movement .Supporters of the movement want to persuade the public that guns should be treated as an accessory, much like a pen or iPod.
California Penal Code only prohibits concealed weapons and says nothing about if weapons are unloaded. The movement is gaining attention, pro and con, all over the country.
Fontano just didn't realize that there are certain exceptions about where you can walk around in this country with an unloaded gun.
Now, he said, he's getting educated. He bought a book and is brushing up on the law.
"Yeah, I'm going to carry my gun again,'' he said. "Just not near a school.''
______________________________________________

Can someone get this guys contact info for me, I'd love to interview him for my OC radio show.
Click to expand...


that sucks, it could have been worse i guess. is he even allowed to own a gun anymore?

he really should have done his research.

Supporters of the movement want to persuade the public that guns should be treated as an accessory, much like a pen or iPod.
^^^^who is doing this????? sure, it would be nice for public to be as scared of guns as they are an ipod or a pen, but treated as an accessory? wait, who uses a pen as an accessory? im not trying to dress up my glock to match some gator skin boots and a burberry suit... maybe i should! i think this story has inspired me get a gun for the purpose of having it match my shoes and belt. AB-FAB!
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Damn. That's too bad. GFSZ's are unconstitutional...yet this state is hell bent on creating laws that pervert the Constitution. Instead of secession...I'm in favor of the Union kicking this state out for cause.

ETA: His brothers should seriously pitchin for his defense. They watched the news story, they should've warned him about the GFSZ's (in addition to his own research).
 
cato

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
imported post

IF he is that excited about a misdemeanor he might even plea and not fight it:(. Does he know it carries a 10 year firearm prohibition?

There will be more "Darwin" arrests with all the additional media on UOC...
 
coolusername2007

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

He's already said too much. This guy talked to the cops for hours, and he's talked to the press (I think). He's screwed. Sorry pal. I'd make your brothers (who apparently don't youlike too much anyway)pay for it all.
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Army wrote:
"Your Honor, I had no idea that a school was located nearby".
Click to expand...
First, as Theseus' case has demonstrated, knowledge may be required technically per the penal code, but it isn't to actually get a conviction.

Second, this guy was on school property.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Looks like everybody else missed the part about there being the Penal Code saying "nothing about if weapons are loaded."

I wrote the following letter to the author of this report:

======================================================

Ms Fernandez,

I read your story about the man charged under PC 626.9 - the "California Gun-Free School Zone Act" - and I immediately noticed a major mistake printed in the article.

You wrote, "California Penal Code only prohibits concealed weapons and says nothing about if weapons are unloaded."

Grammatical errors aside, this statement is factually incorrect. The penal code in fact directly addresses the possession of loaded firearms in section 12031. There is also some case law from the CA Court of Appeals related to (and clarifying) the restrictions involved.

For your perusal, I've attached a pamphlet with a variety of information on CA gun restrictions. The creator of the pamphlet updates it regularly, so for future reference you can find it online at www.californiaopencarry.org - where there is a collection of open carry pamphlets, law enforcement memos and correspondence, and miscellaneous other information you may find interesting.

I hope you and the Silicon Valley Mercury News take this mistake seriously. Your readers may mistakenly trust your article as well-researched and blindly believe there is in fact no restriction on possession of loaded firearm. This could lead to more people carrying firearms in manners that foolishly violate laws. I hope you will encourage your readers to research the practice of open carry before getting involved.

In addition to www.californiaopencarry.org, more information/discussion is available on the forums at www.opencarry.org and at www.calguns.net. I hope you'll join us there and encourage your readers to do the same.

Sincerely,

CA_Libertarian

PS: Any responses to this letter are not private, and may be shared with others.
 
wewd

wewd

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
664
Location
Oregon
imported post

This guy doesn't seem to be very bright. The "right people" supposedly contacted him a while ago, and put him in touch with legal counsel, but he's chosen not to avail himself of it. Maybe he can't afford it, I don't really know. But they had to have given him some advice on his predicament. I do feel sorry for him, to a point, but I don't think he fully realizes the gravity of his situation.
 
1245A Defender

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
is ther any follow up to this case?

old cases have been popping into my head tonight!
alot of our friends have been jacked up it the last year.

the disposition of this case could have great impact on theseus,and his appeal!
 
Last edited:
ryanburbridge

ryanburbridge

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
299
Location
Long beach ca, , USA
CA_Libertarian said:
Looks like everybody else missed the part about there being the Penal Code saying "nothing about if weapons are loaded."

I wrote the following letter to the author of this report:

======================================================

Ms Fernandez,

I read your story about the man charged under PC 626.9 - the "California Gun-Free School Zone Act" - and I immediately noticed a major mistake printed in the article.

You wrote, "California Penal Code only prohibits concealed weapons and says nothing about if weapons are unloaded."

Grammatical errors aside, this statement is factually incorrect. The penal code in fact directly addresses the possession of loaded firearms in section 12031. There is also some case law from the CA Court of Appeals related to (and clarifying) the restrictions involved.

For your perusal, I've attached a pamphlet with a variety of information on CA gun restrictions. The creator of the pamphlet updates it regularly, so for future reference you can find it online at www.californiaopencarry.org - where there is a collection of open carry pamphlets, law enforcement memos and correspondence, and miscellaneous other information you may find interesting.

I hope you and the Silicon Valley Mercury News take this mistake seriously. Your readers may mistakenly trust your article as well-researched and blindly believe there is in fact no restriction on possession of loaded firearm. This could lead to more people carrying firearms in manners that foolishly violate laws. I hope you will encourage your readers to research the practice of open carry before getting involved.

In addition to www.californiaopencarry.org, more information/discussion is available on the forums at www.opencarry.org and at www.calguns.net. I hope you'll join us there and encourage your readers to do the same.

Sincerely,

CA_Libertarian

PS: Any responses to this letter are not private, and may be shared with others.
Click to expand...

You are the man. I think you have done a great job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top