Open Carry Near School Issue

imported post

My house's backyard shares a fence with my old highschool. Does the "Within 1000' of a school" law overrule my ability to OC on my property? Or does my property not guarantee me any protection?

imported post

You would probably be safe in your house and backyard, but your front yard is dicey unless it's fenced and has a no trespassing sign up.

Look up the case of Thesus. Charged and convicted for UOC on private property (at a laundrymat), despite having no knowledge of proximity to a school. If they can get you for private property at all, then the front yard could potentially be a hazard if the general public can just walk on, since there is now case law they can point to disregarding the private property exclusion.

imported post

read all of626.9 PCfyi

snip...

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the
Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
specified in subdivision (f).
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked
container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
accordance with state law...

Click to expand...

Make sure your "private property" is fully enclosed by a fence or similar barrier until "private property" is better defined. (search at calguns.net for 'Theseus' issues or pm him here for a better understanding of some of the GFSZ issues)

Also read 12026 PC regarding open/concealed carry on your property. You should also be familiar with 12031 PC and it's case law.

I would recommend sadly for you to conceal carry for now to avoid many of the pitfalls related to 626.9 until things are fleshed out better in the upcoming 2A civil lawsuits.

Also be advised based on the writting of this law (all guns are illegal)you can be detained, arrested,and or charged until you prove your exemption. :cuss:

imported post

Ha, beat ya to the 'Theseus'!

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

Ha, beat ya to the 'Theseus'!

Click to expand...

Yes, but I posted a link and used spell check .

imported post

++++++

imported post

Don't bother me with details, lol.

imported post

NightOwl wrote:

You would probably be safe in your house and backyard, but your front yard is dicey unless it's fenced and has a no trespassing sign up.

Look up the case of Thesus. Charged and convicted for UOC on private property (at a laundrymat), despite having no knowledge of proximity to a school. If they can get you for private property at all, then the front yard could potentially be a hazard if the general public can just walk on, since there is now case law they can point to disregarding the private property exclusion.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, Theseus' case is not case law.

imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:

NightOwl wrote:

You would probably be safe in your house and backyard, but your front yard is dicey unless it's fenced and has a no trespassing sign up.

Look up the case of Thesus. Charged and convicted for UOC on private property (at a laundrymat), despite having no knowledge of proximity to a school. If they can get you for private property at all, then the front yard could potentially be a hazard if the general public can just walk on, since there is now case law they can point to disregarding the private property exclusion.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, Theseus' case is not case law.

Click to expand...

Totally agree Cool! Let's not concede this because of one local judge's poor decision! Recognize this could happen to you, but it's only unlawful now in that judges jursidiction.

imported post

What it is, if one followed the legal drama, is a realization of the tools the prosecution has within Ca's criminal courts to nail you to a wall. I would advise against going near that wall until we have the tools to have a door open when you get there to pass through it unharmed.

imported post

cato wrote:

What it is, if one followed the legal drama, is a realization of the tools the prosecution has within Ca's criminal courts to nail you to a wall. I would advise against going near that wall until we have the tools to have a door open when you get there to pass through it unharmed.

Click to expand...

Is it unlawful to possess a handgun on private property not a part of the school grounds but within the school zone, and the possession of the handgun is otherwise lawful? Is it a miscarriage of justice for a judge to not allow the use of this provision of the law as a defense? Did Theseus break the law?

imported post

Sons of Liberty wrote:

cato wrote:

What it is, if one followed the legal drama, is a realization of the tools the prosecution has within Ca's criminal courts to nail you to a wall. I would advise against going near that wall until we have the tools to have a door open when you get there to pass through it unharmed.

Click to expand...

Is it unlawful to possess a handgun on private property not a part of the school grounds but within the school zone, and the possession of the handgun is otherwise lawful? Is it a miscarriage of justice for a judge to not allow the use of this provision of the law as a defense? Did Theseus break the law?

Click to expand...

According to the judge and jury, yes.

He was disallowed the 'private property' exemption because the pp was open to the public dispite the different language used in 626.9from 12031.

imported post

cato wrote:

Sons of Liberty wrote:

cato wrote:

What it is, if one followed the legal drama, is a realization of the tools the prosecution has within Ca's criminal courts to nail you to a wall. I would advise against going near that wall until we have the tools to have a door open when you get there to pass through it unharmed.

Click to expand...

Is it unlawful to possess a handgun on private property not a part of the school grounds but within the school zone, and the possession of the handgun is otherwise lawful? Is it a miscarriage of justice for a judge to not allow the use of this provision of the law as a defense? Did Theseus break the law?

Click to expand...

According to the judge and jury, yes.

He was disallowed the 'private property' exemption because the pp was open to the public dispite the different language used in 626.9from 12031.

Click to expand...

I don't believe Theseus broke the law. I believe that the judge legislated from the bench and did not allow the jury to hear the issues of law. The judge decided the case before the case was brought before the jury! This effectively resulted in a trial without the right to argue a defense and without the right to a jury decision.

Judges like this one have created a system where the common man has no expectation of justice!

imported post

Oh, that's a shame.

imported post

The Thesus situation hung on the fact that the private property was a parking lot open to the public. A wrong determination made by a judge who wants to be a legislator.

626.9 (c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
under any of the following circumstances:


626.9 (c) (1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.

No mention of PUBLIC PLACE, merely a requirement that you are on PRIVATE PROPERTY to be exempted from 626.9 for loaded or unloaded carry

In 12031 we DO find "public place" but 12031 is talking about LOADED firearms, which if I remember correctly Thesus did not have.

12031 (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

But 12031 also grants exemptions.

12031 (h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that property.


12031 (l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

I do not see any conflict in the black letter law that prohibits carrying loaded on private property that you are in lawful possession of (own, rent, mom and dads, etc.) or unloaded carry on private property in a school zone - yes the judge is WRONG.

If I am mistaken in what the LAW says, please correct me. I am in California and carrying quite often. At my mothers home, where I stay so I am therefore it is my abode during that time, I carry loaded and open on the property which is in or very close to in a school zone.

I have the resources to fight an unlawful arrest and have no reservations about insisting on exercising my rights and privileges.

imported post

After more close observation of the transcripts I understand what happened in my case. The judge ruled that he believed he was bound by Tapia's ruling and didn't have the power to overturn the ruling.

After reading over the rulings more the judge seemed to try and be fair and open minded. He just didn't make what we consider the right rulings.

imported post

Well if you (Thesus) say the man wasn't trying to be a legislator I hereby retract my statement that he was.

But I still think you got a raw deal.

imported post

We-the-People wrote:

Well if you (Thesus) say the man wasn't trying to be a legislator I hereby retract my statement that he was.

But I still think you got a raw deal.

Click to expand...

And I don't disagree. Seeing as how I am paying the price. . . almost makes me wish I had done the crime!

imported post

I still can't figure out how 626.9 can be construed to apply on private property, even when it is a publicly accessible piece of private property, when 626.9 (c) (1) is sitting right there in black letter law. It just doesn't look that confusing to me.

(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

imported post

It's easy. Be a judge and instruct the jury to ignore the fact that it's on private property, while denying the defense the ability to present evidence to that effect. Simple.