SCHOOL FINDER

imported post

I concur that the burden of proof would be on the DA. But again, I believe that they would only have to convince a jury that a reasonable citizen knows or should know a school was there and / or within 1000 feet. I suppose in a very hypothetical sense they would have to prove that YOU specifically knew that you were in a school zone and violating the law, but I think that would be able to get some kind of conviction by just showing that a reasonable citizen should have known they were in the school zone.

imported post

jsebclark wrote:

I concur that the burden of proof would be on the DA. But again, I believe that they would only have to convince a jury that a reasonable citizen knows or should know a school was there and / or within 1000 feet. I suppose in a very hypothetical sense they would have to prove that YOU specifically knew that you were in a school zone and violating the law, but I think that would be able to get some kind of conviction by just showing that a reasonable citizen should have known they were in the school zone.

Click to expand...

626.9 says the person knows, or reasonably should know, so yes, even unhypotheticaly, they would have to prove that the person in question (not just any "reasonable" person) knew or should have known the school was there. i think the exeption is there to protect people in the example i gave, who are not in their usual area, and would have no reason to know a school is nearby.

then again, 2 identical 626.9 cases could goto trial, one with a conviction based on your idea, and the 2nd with no conviction based on mine. CA courts are a special place full of magic.

imported post

jsebclark wrote:

...[something about going above and beyond 626.9 by measuring from the property line]...

...Knowledge is power...

Click to expand...

Scotty, we need more power!



(Disclaimer: Scotty not actually pictured...)

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

jsebclark wrote:

...[something about going above and beyond 626.9 by measuring from the property line]...

...Knowledge is power...

Click to expand...

Scotty, we need more power!



(Disclaimer: Scotty not actually pictured...)

Click to expand...

:lol:

imported post

I might be looking at it differently, but if you get stopped, or arrested for a 626.9 violation. wouldn't it look better on you, like you've made an attemp to find the schools, and plot your routes accordingly. I think it would look better showing you've made an attempt to avoid GFSZinstead of just pleading ignorance.

Course that's just me.

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

jsebclark wrote:

I concur that the burden of proof would be on the DA. But again, I believe that they would only have to convince a jury that a reasonable citizen knows or should know a school was there and / or within 1000 feet. I suppose in a very hypothetical sense they would have to prove that YOU specifically knew that you were in a school zone and violating the law, but I think that would be able to get some kind of conviction by just showing that a reasonable citizen should have known they were in the school zone.

Click to expand...

626.9 says the person knows, or reasonably should know, so yes, even unhypotheticaly, they would have to prove that the person in question (not just any "reasonable" person) knew or should have known the school was there. i think the exeption is there to protect people in the example i gave, who are not in their usual area, and would have no reason to know a school is nearby.

then again, 2 identical 626.9 cases could goto trial, one with a conviction based on your idea, and the 2nd with no conviction based on mine. CA courts are a special place full of magic.

Click to expand...

and he gives me a ration of s%#@ cause I went to a GUN SHOW with my firearm.

A GUN SHOW ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL.

A GUN SHOW ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL.

and the police are gonna arrest you for carrying in a GUN SHOW...

Only in California. I wouldn't doubt it. I think anyone born in this state is an IDIOT.

imported post

dirtykoala wrote:

knowledge is sometimes power, but in the case of 626.9, the burden of proof is on the DA. the law makes an exeption for someone who didnt know a school was there. playing dumb is your onlydefense to 626.9.


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


But here is a thought. An OC'er gets arrested for 626.9pc and claims no knowledge. Now he is a regular member/poster here. With all the topics referencing 626.9 and the rules and how to avoid or beat it, don't you think the DA will use this forum as evidence that schools are a number 1 consideration amonngst UOC'ers. All the posts that say plan out ....websites that point out school zones. LEO and the DA's office monitor this site....just a thought!

imported post

The only problem I see, is having a complete listing of schools, so you can avoid the problems of 626.9.

imported post

ConsideringOC wrote:

dirtykoala wrote:

knowledge is sometimes power, but in the case of 626.9, the burden of proof is on the DA. the law makes an exeption for someone who didnt know a school was there. playing dumb is your onlydefense to 626.9.


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


But here is a thought. An OC'er gets arrested for 626.9pc and claims no knowledge. Now he is a regular member/poster here. With all the topics referencing 626.9 and the rules and how to avoid or beat it, don't you think the DA will use this forum as evidence that schools are a number 1 consideration amonngst UOC'ers. All the posts that say plan out ....websites that point out school zones. LEO and the DA's office monitor this site....just a thought!

Click to expand...

just because you know that you arent supposed to be in a school zone, it doesnt mean you should have resonably known you were in a school zone. 626.9 does not require me to know where every school is, it does not obligate me to map my route while exersizing a right. 626.9 does not say that if you a member of OCDO you know the law and can be charged any easier than a non member.

im not saying its a bad idea to make sure your not in a school zone when you go out, but like i said earlier, if im traveling through palm springs or somewhere else i have never been, there is no way i would know a school is near by without doing research which is unrequired and could end up hanging me in the long run.

PincheOgro1 wrote:

dirtykoala wrote:

jsebclark wrote:

I concur that the burden of proof would be on the DA. But again, I believe that they would only have to convince a jury that a reasonable citizen knows or should know a school was there and / or within 1000 feet. I suppose in a very hypothetical sense they would have to prove that YOU specifically knew that you were in a school zone and violating the law, but I think that would be able to get some kind of conviction by just showing that a reasonable citizen should have known they were in the school zone.

Click to expand...

626.9 says the person knows, or reasonably should know, so yes, even unhypotheticaly, they would have to prove that the person in question (not just any "reasonable" person) knew or should have known the school was there. i think the exeption is there to protect people in the example i gave, who are not in their usual area, and would have no reason to know a school is nearby.

then again, 2 identical 626.9 cases could goto trial, one with a conviction based on your idea, and the 2nd with no conviction based on mine. CA courts are a special place full of magic.

Click to expand...

and he gives me a ration of s%#@ cause I went to a GUN SHOW with my firearm.

A GUN SHOW ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL.

A GUN SHOW ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SCHOOL.

and the police are gonna arrest you for carrying in a GUN SHOW...

Only in California. I wouldn't doubt it. I think anyone born in this state is an IDIOT.

Click to expand...

the problem here is that you are trying to make sense of california law, twice.

imported post

Try Google Map....

imported post

ConsideringOC wrote:

dirtykoala wrote:

knowledge is sometimes power, but in the case of 626.9, the burden of proof is on the DA. the law makes an exeption for someone who didnt know a school was there. playing dumb is your onlydefense to 626.9.


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


But here is a thought. An OC'er gets arrested for 626.9pc and claims no knowledge. Now he is a regular member/poster here. With all the topics referencing 626.9 and the rules and how to avoid or beat it, don't you think the DA will use this forum as evidence that schools are a number 1 consideration amonngst UOC'ers. All the posts that say plan out ....websites that point out school zones. LEO and the DA's office monitor this site....just a thought!

Click to expand...

Knowledge is "SOMETIMES" power? The burden of proof is always on the DA. "innocent until proven guilty..." playing DUMB... LOL, well it should be easy for some.

A thought ? You make an arguement AGAINST knowing where the schools are, then in the next paragraph, you make the arguement WHY you should know. LOL

here's a thought for ya... IGNORANCE IS BLISS !

imported post

tap tap

imported post

PincheOgro1 wrote:

ConsideringOC wrote:

dirtykoala wrote:

knowledge is sometimes power, but in the case of 626.9, the burden of proof is on the DA. the law makes an exeption for someone who didnt know a school was there. playing dumb is your onlydefense to 626.9.


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


But here is a thought. An OC'er gets arrested for 626.9pc and claims no knowledge. Now he is a regular member/poster here. With all the topics referencing 626.9 and the rules and how to avoid or beat it, don't you think the DA will use this forum as evidence that schools are a number 1 consideration amonngst UOC'ers. All the posts that say plan out ....websites that point out school zones. LEO and the DA's office monitor this site....just a thought!

Click to expand...

Knowledge is "SOMETIMES" power? The burden of proof is always on the DA. "innocent until proven guilty..." playing DUMB... LOL, well it should be easy for some.

A thought ? You make an arguement AGAINST knowing where the schools are, then in the next paragraph, you make the arguement WHY you should know. LOL

here's a thought for ya... IGNORANCE IS BLISS !

Click to expand...

which 2 paragraphs are you talking about?



edit: i think i figured it out. you think the italic print above is all mine, but only the first paragraph is mine. the second paragraph is from "considering OC". is this safe to say? what happend, is you didnt read everything through (i told you that you do this) right? LOL

what i meant by "knowledge is sometimes power" is that in cases like the GFSZ, if you didnt know you were in a school zone, you arent guilty of a 626.9 violation (in theroy. Thesus) (please see PC 626.9). i didnt say the burden of proof is always on the DA, in a 626.9 case it is (read about Thesus). here in america you are inocent until proven guilty (again, in theroy) and again, in the case of 626.9, you are inocent until they can prove you had knowledge of a school being within 1000ft. This all goes to show that playing (or actually being) dumb of the school zone does work (in theory) in your favor.

heres a thought for "ya"... learn to read!


ETA: heres another thought for ya... if one were to get charged with 626.9, they would not be convicted without due process. here are two examples of what one could argue in court in their defense;

1) "yes i was aware of the school, but it slipped my mind that day. i did my research and located all the schools in that area to be safe. i needed to stop for gas and just didnt think to lock my gun up."

2) "i had no knowledge of that school, i hardley ever am in that area. i had pulled over for some gas,i hadno knowledgeuntil after the fact that therewas a school 2 blocks behind the gas station."

which do you think would better convince a jury that you did not know, or reasonably should not have known that you were in a school zone?

imported post

1) "yes i was aware of the school, but it slipped my mind that day. i did my research and located all the schools in that area to be safe.

i needed to stop for gas and just """didnt think""" to lock my gun up."



2) "i had no knowledge of that school, i hardley ever am in that area. i had pulled over for some gas,i hadno knowledgeuntil after the fact that therewas a school 2 blocks behind the gas station."

In other words the two instances show WHO EVER this person is, is an IDIOT, and shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Which is another thing. Gun ownership is about RESPONSIBILITY. If you aren't responsible enough to follow through to make sure you are not breaking laws, endangering people, why do you think <- ? you deserve to have a gun ?

YOU HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THIS KOALA if you expect me to see your point:exclaim:,

imported post

Write a letter to your local state representative and ask for a map of his/her district showing all the 1,000-foot gun free school zones.

imported post

Pinche, the 2a (while not actually protected in CA) does not have an exeption to your right for school zones, any reasonable person understands this. 626.9 is a direct infringement of a right that (in theroy) shall not be infringed. You are spending too much time trying to figure out how you can comply with this infringement, and not enough time trying to figure out how to exersize your right in full.

Like I said before, it's not a bad idea to know the schools in your area. A jury can probably be convinced that you should have known of every school in your city. But when you are going to areas you really have no way of knowing about, ignorance of being in a school zone would be your only defense. Personally, I keep my gun in a locked container when I'm driving around just to avoid the drama of going to court. When I went to the walnut creek uoc meet, I did no research of school zones. I resonably should not know of any school in walnut creek.

If you did/ do get charged with 626.9 for uocing across the street from a school while at a gun show, what will your defense be? That the law makes no sense? That could be a good argument, but will cost lots of money to win. You could have a case law in your name though.

imported post

Koala,

this whole dialog between us got started because I said I went to the Cross Roads Gun Show, and I UOC'd there. I got a ration of $%#@ from you and others about a school being on the north side of the gun show, and I was accused of crimes against humanity.

The entrance to the gun show, and to the best of my knowledge, the parking lot,was on the south side of the fair grounds. Way beyond the 1000 ft, or at least to the best of my knowledge it was. NOW you are saying that the only way to beat a 626.9 violation is IGNORANCE. IF that is the case why did you, and others, give me such a ration of $#%& in the 1st place? NOW you say, if you go to an area you are not familiar with, how are you expected toKNOW of schools in that area. I live in Perris, Ca. The Orange County FairGrounds is what 50-60 miles away. WAY OUT of my LOCAL area that I frequent. I made an attempt to locate, and avoid schools in my area. If you OC in your town, wouldn't it be best to know where the schools are at, so you can AVOID the pitfalls of a 626.9 charge? AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION, IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE. Heres another saying you may be familiar with: Cover Your Ass. (CYA). I think to get the PERMIT for the GUN SHOW somebody would have said "HEY WAIT A MINUTE"... if there were any problems. I mean the PERMIT for the GUN SHOW came from the CITY where it was held. You know ZONING...

Like I said initially, your attitude was argumentative andthat of an agitator. There was no reason for you to "attack" me the way you did, and IT WAS an "ATTACK".

There were HUNDREDS of people there OCing, walking in and out of the gun show to their cars, and there were HUNDREDS of people there buying hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of rounds of ammunition. I was not the "ONLY ONE", lol.

imported post

PincheOgro1 wrote:

Koala,

this whole dialog between us got started because I said I went to the Cross Roads Gun Show, and I UOC'd there. I got a ration of $%#@ from you and others about a school being on the north side of the gun show, and I was accused of crimes against humanity.

The entrance to the gun show, and to the best of my knowledge, the parking lot,was on the south side of the fair grounds. Way beyond the 1000 ft, or at least to the best of my knowledge it was. NOW you are saying that the only way to beat a 626.9 violation is IGNORANCE. IF that is the case why did you, and others, give me such a ration of $#%& in the 1st place? NOW you say, if you go to an area you are not familiar with, how are you expected toKNOW of schools in that area.
[shadow=green]I live in Perris, Ca. The Orange County FairGrounds is what 50-60 miles away. WAY OUT of my LOCAL area that I frequent[/shadow]
.
[shadow=blue]I made an attempt to locate, and avoid schools in my area. If you OC in your town, wouldn't it be best to know where the schools are at, so you can AVOID the pitfalls of a 626.9 charge?[/shadow]
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION, IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE. Heres another saying you may be familiar with: Cover Your Ass. (CYA).
[shadow=yellow]I think to get the PERMIT for the GUN SHOW somebody would have said "HEY WAIT A MINUTE"... if there were any problems. I mean the PERMIT for the GUN SHOW came from the CITY where it was held. You know ZONING...[/shadow]Like I said initially, your attitude was argumentative andthat of an agitator. There was no reason for you to "attack" me the way you did, and IT WAS an "ATTACK".

There were HUNDREDS of people there OCing, walking in and out of the gun show to their cars, and there were HUNDREDS of people there buying hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of rounds of ammunition. I was not the "ONLY ONE", lol.

Click to expand...

the bolded, under-lined, italic above... prove it. im pretty sure it started when you told me i was asking for trouble by not complying with an order i had no need to comply with. it seems that i did not give you a ration of ____, not even a tea spoon, for carrying at the gunshow. i even gave you advice on how to get rid of the post to clear yourself.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/37379-1.html

i keep telling you, but you wont listen, you need to read things more before you comment about them. like when you PMed me a part of PC148, to try to point out that not proning out when ordered to was a violation, you did not read the end of PC148 that said it only applies to a lawful detention.

sorry if you feel that i attacked you, i dont see how i did though. you deleted all of your posts in the above linked thread which is a good start for covering yourself up, but you should email j pierce and ask him to delete the thread all together.

keep in mind you may or may not have commited a crime at the gunshow, whether others were or not is irrelevant. if a cop thinks you did, andis reading this board if they wanted to, they could click on your user name, see your email address which is your name, google your name, find your address, and have the DA send you a notice to appear.


edit to bold italic under-line another line, and point out to you the yellow above. you are trying to make sense of CA law.

edit again: the blue above, i agree with you, i said that in my post prior. the green, now you are getting the idea... you didnt know there was a school there until after the fact, so you were not in violation of 626.9, ignorance of the school so far has served you well.

one dancing banana for you sir. :celebrate

imported post

oh never mind

imported post

Do it the easy way. Check for schools in the areayou are going. When you get in the car, lock up your gun. At your destination, put it in your holster.

This thread makes my butt itch.