imported post
Technically, you can, but beware...
§ 626.9.Possession of firearm in school zone or on grounds of public or private university or college; Exceptions(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.
Illustrative casesDefendant was properly convicted of possession of a firearm within a school zone where at least part of the parked car in which defendant, armed with a handgun, was sitting was located within 1,000 feet of a school.
People v. Mejia (1999, Cal App 4th Dist) 72 Cal App 4th 1269, 85 Cal Rptr 2d 690, 1999 Cal App LEXIS 577, review denied (1999, Cal)
1999 Cal LEXIS 6403.Even though defendant resided in his camper, the camper was not a residence within the meaning of
Pen C § 626.9(c)(1); the gun was found behind the sofa in the living area of the camper and therefore, the exception of
Pen C § 626.9(c)(2) did not apply either.
People v. Anson (2002, Cal App 4th Dist) 105 Cal App 4th 22, 129 Cal Rptr 2d 124, 2002 Cal App LEXIS 5282, review denied (2003, Cal)
2003 Cal LEXIS 2052.Where defendant possessed a firearm on a sidewalk that was within 1,000 feet of a high school, it was irrelevant whether an easement for a public way existed because the sidewalk was not private property within the meaning of the
Pen C § 626.9(c)(1) exception to the possession offense.
People v. Tapia (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 4th 1153, 29 Cal Rptr 3d 158, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 873, review denied (2005, Cal)
2005 Cal LEXIS 9991.Where defendant possessed a firearm on a sidewalk that was within 1,000 feet of a high school, the application of
Pen C § 626.9 was not unconstitutionally vague because any property interest owned by defendant's father in the sidewalk was not of a sort that a reasonable citizen would understand to be private; hence, a defense that the sidewalk was private property was not viable, and the trial court did not infringe defendant's right to present a defense under § 626.9(c)(1) by excluding evidence of a claimed easement.
People v. Tapia (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 4th 1153, 29 Cal Rptr 3d 158, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 873, review denied (2005, Cal)
2005 Cal LEXIS 9991.Where defendant possessed a firearm on a sidewalk that was within 1,000 feet of a high school, in violation of
Pen C § 626.9, an instructional error was harmless because the sidewalk was not private property within the meaning of § 626.9 as a matter of law and because defendant, having violated
Pen C § 12031(a)(1) by carrying a firearm in a public place, was not entitled to claim the exception of
Pen C § 626.9(c)(1) for lawful possession on private property.
People v. Tapia (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 129 Cal App 4th 1153, 29 Cal Rptr 3d 158, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 873, review denied (2005, Cal)
2005 Cal LEXIS 9991.
Once you hit thesidewalk, it's open season on you.
