Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Man convicted for firing gun in school zone while on private property..

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Man convicted for firing gun in school zone while on private property..

    This is very interesting because private property is an exception to the reach of the CFSZ law or has some liberal DA and judge determined that the exception applies only to carry and not shooting?



    http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/vic...eria-zone.html

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Remember this about judges, DA's and politicians.They are not interested in what is right or wrong. They are all elected officials and are only concerned on what is required to win votes under the passion of the moment.

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    This is very interesting because private property is an exception to the reach of the CFSZ law or has some liberal DA and judge determined that the exception applies only to carry and not shooting?



    http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/vic...eria-zone.html
    The article implies that he was convicted under California's GFSZ law, which is most likely more restrictive than the Federal or WI one.

    The WI one says NOTHING abut firing a weapon.

  4. #4
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    The article implies that he was convicted under California's GFSZ law, which is most likely more restrictive than the Federal or WI one.
    ANY state that has a GFSZ statute IS more restrictive because the Fed. GFSZ cannot be enforced.

  5. #5
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    ANY state that has a GFSZ statute IS more restrictive because the Fed. GFSZ cannot be enforced.
    I would change that to "shouldn't be enforced", however, the latest iteration hasn't been challenged in court.

    With that being said, I would ASSuME that the CA GFSZ has some sort of 'discharge' wording where the Federal/WI one doesn't.

  6. #6
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I would change that to "shouldn't be enforced", however, the latest iteration hasn't been challenged in court.

    With that being said, I would ASSuME that the CA GFSZ has some sort of 'discharge' wording where the Federal/WI one doesn't.
    I will leave as CANNOT cuz a DA must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such action had an adverse affect on intra/inter state commerce, which is next to impossible to prove.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    I would change that to "shouldn't be enforced", however, the latest iteration hasn't been challenged in court.

    With that being said, I would ASSuME that the CA GFSZ has some sort of 'discharge' wording where the Federal/WI one doesn't.
    I say cannot as well because "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  8. #8
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    I say cannot as well because "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language.
    I'm not defending, however, I believe the argument 'they' are using is that the ammunition and/or weapon has crossed state lines. That is why ID, I believe, has passed some laws that exempt ID manufactured weapons from Federal firearm laws.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    California Penal Code 626.9. Gun Free School Zone.
    (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
    (b) Any person who posseses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in paragraph (1) of sbdivision (e), unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent , his or her desgnee, 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 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.

    (1) "School zone" means an area in, or on the grounds of a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12 inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school.

    (f) Imprisonment in a state prison for two, three, or five years --------

    (d) Except as provided in subdivision (b), it shall be unlawful for any person, with reckless disregard forthe safety of another, to discharge, or attempt to discharge, a firearm in a school zone as defined in paraqgraph (1) of subdivision (e).
    The prohibition contained in this subdivision does not apply to the discharge of a firearm to the extent that the conditions of paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) are satisfied.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wisconsin statute 948.605 Gun-Free school zones.
    948.605(3) Discharge of firearms in a school zone.
    (a) Any individual who knowingly , or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges or attempts to discharge, a firearm at a place the individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
    (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the attempt to discharge, a firearm:
    1. On private property not part of the school grounds:
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 07-23-2010 at 01:05 PM. Reason: Corrected spelling of school

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Unless there are circumstances surounding the case that were not reported it certainly seem to me the person was wrongly convicted and penalized. If the case is as reported I hope he apeals.

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Unless there are circumstances surounding the case that were not reported it certainly seem to me the person was wrongly convicted and penalized. If the case is as reported I hope he apeals.
    That's the way I read it as well.

  12. #12
    McX
    Guest
    technicalities and california, always seem to go hand in hand.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    276
    Most cities ban the discharge of firearms not just within their physical limits, but the discharge of firearms outside their boundaries if the projectile crosses through or lands in their limits as well. I can see a DA arguing that the discharge of a firearm on private property still violates California's GFSZ act if someone fired a gun and the bullet went off the property. The man says he fired his revolver into the ground, but I can see a DA pulling a shuck-n'-jive to convince a jury otherwise. And we can't forget that the guy did violate a city ordinance anyways by firing his revolver for no justifiable reason.

Posting Permissions

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