New to OC Who is right LAPD or LASD?

wewd · Mar 6, 2010

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.

Robin47 · Mar 6, 2010

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 :banghead:

N6ATF · Mar 6, 2010

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 :banghead:

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.

Robin47 · Mar 7, 2010

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

demnogis · Mar 7, 2010

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.

Theseus · Mar 9, 2010

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.

Statkowski · Mar 9, 2010

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?

Gundude · Mar 9, 2010

imported post

Theseus wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

A parent should be able to pick up their child at school while carrying. The only GFZ should onlybe one that a perimiter can be maintained.

A stronger penalty for a crime only serves to keep one off the streets longer. The threat of astronger penaltydoesn't work, because criminals never think they will be caught. If they did, no one would commit murder because of the death penalty.

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

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?

From OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum Basic Rules:
If you think the post is questionable, please don't post it. Thanks!
7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

Correction:

"I live in San Dimas and our law enforcement services are provided to the City of San Dimas by contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. (SDPD/LACSD) Whyour LACSD'sunloaded open carry (UOC)memosays that you can't be within 1500ft of a school? http://www.californiaopencarry.org/memos/LASD_oc_memo.pdf
But, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) orevery other local law enforcement departments' memo saying a school's gunsafe zone is 1000ft?"

Isn't that simple not to confused usand without doing so much homework for our membersbeside Dam-Dimas? All I asked just Sam about the 1500' memo for proof and am not asking you folks for demanding. But thank you for pin point from the needle in a haystack of hundreds of topic and thousands of thread. since it isn't from searching engines. So, don't accusing me as newbie.

DISCLAIMER

The law is always in a state of flux and even politicslaw enforcements, lawyers and judges get it wrong from time to time. All my advice posted on this board should be considered nothing more than hearsay. Even if a poster identifies themselves as an dictatorship jpierce, Paceand dirtykoala (are wrongfully accused me as a anti-law enforcement and commercial sales),acting godsor expert in a given field like yelohamr, there is no way to verify that fact or that they are correct. Therefore, any and all advice you glean from this forum should be independently verified!

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

jsebclark wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

JJ wrote: "I'm sure someone more knowledgable than myself can elaborate."Then pleasedon't carry the guns JJ, it isn't a toy for you.

LMAO!! :celebrate

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

From OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum Basic Rules:
9) No stalking of other users. This includes creating accounts with similar names, avatars and personal information in an attempt to confuse others as to the views of the original poster.

yelohamrwrote: Another one

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

JJ wrote:

Wc wrote:

Sam-Dimas wrote:Show us the memo please! And what's lasd?

Click to expand...

LA Sheriffs Dept.

Thank you for helped Sam-Dimas.

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

Ca Patriot wrote:

Here is the memo from the LA County sheriffs dept where they say 1500 ft.

Thanks, but Sam-Dimasisn't help at all.

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Wc wrote:

Ca Patriot wrote:

I noticed that the LA sheriffs had 1500ft on their memo as well.

Click to expand...

Please show us the memo.

Click to expand...

There are many. I suggest you do your homework. All of them are available here:

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

I'm not asking you.

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

MudCamper wrote:

Wc wrote:

Who's Arnie??? What's the bill number?? Where's the bill now?!?Who's can really signed the new bill?

Click to expand...

Arnie is the Governor of California.

Here's an old copy of the bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090601_amended_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.

I'm not entirely sure?
I'm not entirely sure?
I'm not entirely sure?
So, you not sure you're a toddler?
It is sound like a girl name to me.
Arnie is an uncommon first name for men and an equally uncommon last name for both men and women. (1990 U.S. Census)
You means ArnoldSchwarzenegger? Oh, I've known him well.
Thanks for the copied of old bill, many errors.
It's dead without sure.
I don't do my works with slangs and I ain't asking you to but thanks for helped other members for you.

Wc · Mar 13, 2010

imported post

jsebclark wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

Which part you do not understands? GUN FREE ZONE

Click to expand...

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.

Howdy jsebclarkand thanks to bring this up. The main problem is the timeline as above from the Legislative Analysis on which draft? I don't trust the analysis and that's how they wrote from time to time ofdraftingbill isn't a final draft the way you read it. It may be stalling until August or die. Therefore, UOC is still remaining the 'same enforcement' on gun free zone until the end of June?

Theseus · Mar 14, 2010

imported post

Wc wrote:

jsebclark wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

Which part you do not understands? GUN FREE ZONE

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Howdy jsebclarkand thanks to bring this up. The main problem is the timeline as above from the Legislative Analysis on which draft? I don't trust the analysis and that's how they wrote from time to time ofdraftingbill isn't a final draft the way you read it. It may be stalling until August or die. Therefore, UOC is still remaining the 'same enforcement' on gun free zone until the end of June?

The bill failed to pass last year and as such is not going to be law at this point. It may in the future, but so far this bill has not been brought back for 2010.

So the California Gun Free School Zone established by California Penal Code 626.9 is 1000 feet.

Is that clear enough for you?

Wc · Mar 14, 2010

imported post

Wc · Mar 14, 2010

imported post

Theseus wrote:

Wc wrote:

jsebclark wrote:

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?

Click to expand...

Which part you do not understands? GUN FREE ZONE

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Howdy jsebclarkand thanks to bring this up. The main problem is the timeline as above from the Legislative Analysis on which draft? I don't trust the analysis and that's how they wrote from time to time ofdraftingbill isn't a final draft the way you read it. It may be stalling until August or die. Therefore, UOC is still remaining the 'same enforcement' on gun free zone until the end of June?

Click to expand...

The bill failed to pass last year and as such is not going to be law at this point. It may in the future, but so far this bill has not been brought back for 2010.

So the California Gun Free School Zone established by California Penal Code 626.9 is 1000 feet.

Is that clear enough for you?

Code:

Are you written about me or jsebclark? We aren't wrote about CPC 626.9 but the "if" future AB 668 how is changing inclarified exceptions content, substance and etc. Regardless the feet, jsebclark'squestion about 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?

Code:

The answer is NO; it is still remain the same enforcement for UOC as is before.

Those really issues are about an exception to the school zone firearms possession prohibition for firearms that are otherwise lawfully possessed or transported “in a vehicle on a driveway or parking lot of a school”. By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Remember, this isn't a final draft of AB 668 bill. Cannot we just getting along to shutup until the end of June?

Code:

Theseus, GO TO TOP,,, go help Sam-Dimasand writea nice letter to John D. Williams ofLACSD about the 1,500' or why he did disregardlessness the LACDA's memo?

Theseus · Mar 14, 2010

imported post

Wc wrote:

Theseus wrote:

The bill failed to pass last year and as such is not going to be law at this point. It may in the future, but so far this bill has not been brought back for 2010.

So the California Gun Free School Zone established by California Penal Code 626.9 is 1000 feet.

Is that clear enough for you?

Code:

Are you written about me or jsebclark? We aren't wrote about CPC 626.9 but the "if" future AB 668 how is changing inclarified exceptions content, substance and etc. Regardless the feet, jsebclark'squestion about 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?

Code:

The answer is NO; it is still remain the same enforcement for UOC as is before.

Those really issues are about an exception to the school zone firearms possession prohibition for firearms that are otherwise lawfully possessed or transported “in a vehicle on a driveway or parking lot of a school”. By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Remember, this isn't a final draft of AB 668 bill. Cannot we just getting along to shutup until the end of June?

Code:

Theseus, GO TO TOP,,, go help Sam-Dimasand writea nice letter to John D. Williams ofLACSD about the 1,500' or why he did disregardlessness the LACDA's memo?

I am sorry, but I am having trouble understanding the issue then. The bill is dead and it is not becoming law, and to this point is not going to be an issue in 2010, so it doesn't really matter what the bill says now.

If we are simply being scholarly and discussing what the bill would have done then I can understand more clearly what the intention is and what I can contribute.

New to OC Who is right LAPD or LASD?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member