Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 63

Thread: New to OC Who is right LAPD or LASD?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Dimas, California, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    I live in a part of los angeles county patroled by lasd, Their OC memo to it's departments says that you can't be within 1500ft of a school. lapd & every other department says a school safe zone is 1000ft. Who is correct?

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Sam-Dimas wrote:
    I live in a part of los angeles county patroled by lasd, Their OC memo to it's departments says that you can't be within 1500ft of a school. lapd & every other department says a school safe zone is 1000ft. Who is correct?
    The California penal code, unfortunately.

    Search 626.9, gun free school zone...

    Basically states that possession is prohibited within 1000 feet of a school.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Post imported post

    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Arnie signed a new bill which will change it to 1500 ft.later this year. Not sure exactly when. I'm sure someone more knowledgable than myself can elaborate.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    That would be something we need to know.

    O.O

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    JJ wrote:
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Arnie signed a new bill which will change it to 1500 ft.later this year. Not sure exactly when. I'm sure someone more knowledgable than myself can elaborate.
    The 1500 ft isn't law... YET! AB 668 was introduced last year and is making its way through the legislative process. It has been approved in the State Assembly and is in the Public Safety Commitee in the State Senate right now. It looks like it got through the assembly without and problems. (i.e. no one even voted against it)

    When the bill was first introduced it only changed the 1000 ft rule to 1500 ft. Over the process it has been amended and now has some other provisions in it that make lawfull pocession of pistols not so bad, but you still wouldn't be able to open carry within the 1500 ft. Well you wouldn't be able to open carry with a firearm that is conceable. So I guess we could protest that one with open carry of other firearms

    Anyways... Hopefully it might get amended again after the SCOTUS decision in June.

    Also, in the text of the bill it states that it is to provide safety and security to students and teachers, so does that mean there are checkpoints 1500ft from the school on every transportation route in order to ensure our students and teachers safety? What do you think?

    Also in the text it talks about criminal enhancements for illegally carrying in the school zone. If that was the case then we would be able to UOC because we wouldn't be doing it illegally, right?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Sam-Dimas wrote:
    I live in a part of los angeles county patroled by lasd, Their OC memo to it's departments says that you can't be within 1500ft of a school. lapd & every other department says a school safe zone is 1000ft. Who is correct?
    Show us the memo please! And what's lasd?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    JJ wrote:
    I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Arnie signed a new bill which will change it to 1500 ft.later this year. Not sure exactly when. I'm sure someone more knowledgable than myself can elaborate.
    You've gone too far! Who's Arnie??? What's the bill number?? Where's the bill now?!?Who's can really signed the new bill?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    jsebclark wrote:
    Also in the text it talks about criminal enhancements for illegally carrying in the school zone. If that was the case then we would be able to UOC because we wouldn't be doing it illegally, right?
    Which part you do not understands? GUN FREE ZONE

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    Ca Patriot wrote:
    I noticed that the LA sheriffs had 1500ft on their memo as well.
    Please show us the memo.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Another one

  11. #11
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Post imported post

    Wc wrote:
    Sam-Dimas wrote:
    Show us the memo please! And what's lasd?
    LA Sheriffs Dept.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Wc wrote:
    Ca Patriot wrote:
    I noticed that the LA sheriffs had 1500ft on their memo as well.
    Please show us the memo.
    There are many. I suggest you do your homework. All of them are available here:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=36464


  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Wc wrote:
    Who's Arnie??? What's the bill number?? Where's the bill now?!?Who's can really signed the new bill?
    Arnie is the Governor of California.

    Here's an old copy of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/...d_asm_v97.html

    I believe it's dead. I'm not entirely sure, but if you want to know, do some of your own work to find out and stop demanding it of others like a toddler.



  14. #14
    Regular Member JJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    East Contra Costa County, California, ,
    Posts
    213

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    , do some of your own work to find out and stop demanding it of others like a toddler.

    LMAO!! :celebrate

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    San Dimas, California, USA
    Posts
    2

    Post imported post

    Asking a question to others with more knowledge is part of home work. but there seems to be a discrepancy with the la sheriffs department & others. I live over 1000ft but within 1500ft from a school so I need all the info I can get

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    1500 is the "safe school zones" that create sentence enhancements for dealing drugs and other things.

    The Gun Free School Zones are 1000, although there was a bill to extend that to 1500 feet, but as far as I know it didn't pass.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Theseus wrote:
    1500 is the "safe school zones" that create sentence enhancements for dealing drugs and other things.

    The Gun Free School Zones are 1000, although there was a bill to extend that to 1500 feet, but as far as I know it didn't pass.
    Issue:
    INCREASE GUN-FREE ZONES[/b] (Lieu)



    Description:
    Increases School Gun Free Zone from 1000' to 1500' for the criminal possession of a firearm.

    This bill would extend the "gun free" zone distance from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet from the grounds of a public or private school.[/b]




    Latest Info:
    style="BACKGROUND: yellow"09/16/2009 - AB 668 failed to pass the legislature in 2009 but may return in 2010.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Antioch, California, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Wc wrote:
    jsebclark wrote:
    Also in the text it talks about criminal enhancements for illegally carrying in the school zone. If that was the case then we would be able to UOC because we wouldn't be doing it illegally, right?
    Which part you do not understands? GUN FREE ZONE
    Thank you for your very obvious comment. Unfortunately I didn't get my point across.

    Here is a little excerpt from the Legislative Analysis:

    COMMENTS : According to the author, "AB 668 will expand the
    boundaries of the Gun-Free School Zones from 1,000 feet to 1,500
    feet in an effort to restrict the possession of firearms within
    school zones and to conform the boundaries with Safe School
    Zones. This bill will ensure that criminal possession or use of
    a gun around schools is still applicable to the Gun-Free School
    Zone Act.
    "AB 668 also clarifies the exceptions to the Gun-Free School
    Zone Act applies only to individuals who are in lawful
    possession
    or who are lawfully transporting a firearm.
    These
    clarifications ensure that individuals who illegally possess
    firearms are not able to exploit the Act's exemptions thus
    maintaining the Legislature's original intent.


    My point is that if this is the intent of the law, then people who lawfully carry within school zone are not criminals and are part of the clarified exceptions. The problem is that the intent of the law as stated above says one thing, while the content and substance of the law says something different. For example,the actual text of the law says that NO one can carry at all, but the intent as written above states that it is to close loop holes on criminals, not law abiding citizens.

  19. #19
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    In their terminology, "lawfully possessed" means with a government issued permission slip, a.k.a. carry permit. Same as the federal GFSZ. Even though UOC is perfectly lawful in California, it does not rise to the level of lawful possession as far as the GFSZ is concerned. Likewise, "lawful transportation" means unloaded in a locked container. I expect post-incorporation some of these things may change.

    I would love to see Vermont sue the federal government over the federal GFSZ, since there is no way for anyone in that state to lawfully carry within 1000 feet of a school, since Vermont does not issue any sort of permit to carry yet their constitution protects all forms of carry, including concealed. There is no exception in the law for constitutionally protected, no-permit-required carry. Thankfully the police in Vermont do not seem to enforce the federal law, as they are not required to and is really not their jurisdiction anyway.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    I agree with you WEWD, that the local LEO's in Vermont, don't inforce the

    GFSZ laws there, then why do they in California inforce it ?

    Theseus, would not be in trouble and lose his rights. If Cal-LEO's are in inexces of jurisdiction then they are doing illegal stuff, by inforceing fed laws on the people.

    Who do the local LEO's work for the feds or the people of California ?

    Robin47

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Robin47 wrote:
    I agree with you WEWD, that the local LEO's in Vermont, don't inforce the

    GFSZ laws there, then why do they in California inforce it ?

    Theseus, would not be in trouble and lose his rights. If Cal-LEO's are in inexces of jurisdiction then they are doing illegal stuff, by inforceing fed laws on the people.

    Who do the local LEO's work for the feds or the people of California ?

    Robin47
    He wasn't a victim of GFSZ federal enforcement. CA has an overlapping jurisdiction GFSZ, PC 626.9. He could be charged under both fed and state and not suffer double jeopardy, but hasn't.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Yeah thats the problem this "Overlapping Juristiction" business is UnConstitutional

    and thats why we are where we are today with no protection of laws like

    "Shall not be Infringed".

    That means in Black's law book "To mess with in any form of fashion".

    In other words "Hands off " ! Robin47

  23. #23
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    The way 626.9 should originally have been written was to make it an enhanced charge for unlawful possession of a firearm within 1000ft of a school. That means concealed carry without a permit, disqualified person in possession (think known and recognizable gang members), during commission of a crime (not minor trafic infraction), etc. Not normal law abiding citizens with which LEOs have no RAS or PC to conduct a stop.

    I honestly do not think 626.9 will get pulled off our books due to "public safety", but we may well be successful in getting it rewritten post-incorporation to truly be the extra punishment for criminals it was intended to be; not the rights-neutralizing zone it was made into.
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    demnogis wrote:
    The way 626.9 should originally have been written was to make it an enhanced charge for unlawful possession of a firearm within 1000ft of a school. That means concealed carry without a permit, disqualified person in possession (think known and recognizable gang members), during commission of a crime (not minor trafic infraction), etc. Not normal law abiding citizens with which LEOs have no RAS or PC to conduct a stop.

    I honestly do not think 626.9 will get pulled off our books due to "public safety", but we may well be successful in getting it rewritten post-incorporation to truly be the extra punishment for criminals it was intended to be; not the rights-neutralizing zone it was made into.
    I wholeheartedly disagree. The Fed GFSZ will fall and the California one won't be able to specifically spell out and prohibit guns within 1000 feet of a school. In the end the only part of 626.9 to stand will be on the campus (grounds) of a school. If they are lucky we might allow an enhancement outside of the grounds.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    Has anyone ever written to either their elected representative or the local police department inquiring exactly where the state-mandated gun free school zones are?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •