Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: SB 1070 and California's Gun Free School Zones

  1. #1
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673

    SB 1070 and California's Gun Free School Zones

    Since a federal judge ruled in AZ that our SB 1070 (Illegal Immigration Enforcement Law) infringed on the government's law, why doesn't someone in CA sue against your GFSZ law, saying it infringes on the federal law?

    Either way, one of us wins. Either CA has to drop GFSZ, or AZ is allowed to proceed with 1070. Either way, the looser then can appeal, and probably win.

  2. #2
    Regular Member ryanburbridge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Long beach ca, , USA
    Posts
    299
    This shows only the right rules can be broken. Rules against guns OK. Rules against criminals who may vote for the left NOT OK.

    I like this idea how do we start?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Step 1

    Acquire $100,000
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    Since a federal judge ruled in AZ that our SB 1070 (Illegal Immigration Enforcement Law) infringed on the government's law, why doesn't someone in CA sue against your GFSZ law, saying it infringes on the federal law?
    I thought it violated the established case law of the fourth amendment. Our case law in CA for carrying of firearms is nonexistent. We can't even get our "representatives" to believe that everybody has a right to bear arms outside of the home.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by bigtoe416 View Post
    I thought it violated the established case law of the fourth amendment. Our case law in CA for carrying of firearms is nonexistent. We can't even get our "representatives" to believe that everybody has a right to bear arms outside of the home.
    They allow you to bear arms inside of the home? What were they thinking?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    They allow you to bear arms inside of the home? What were they thinking?
    Money from anti-gun organizations.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329
    Quote Originally Posted by AZkopper View Post
    Since a federal judge ruled in AZ that our SB 1070 (Illegal Immigration Enforcement Law) infringed on the government's law, why doesn't someone in CA sue against your GFSZ law, saying it infringes on the federal law?

    Either way, one of us wins. Either CA has to drop GFSZ, or AZ is allowed to proceed with 1070. Either way, the looser then can appeal, and probably win.
    Last I read is waiting from the Montana Firearms Freedom Act case.

    Reminder, your State is still have Federal GFSZ.

  8. #8
    Regular Member AZkopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    673
    Nowhere in AZ is the GFSZ enforced. No local or state agency cares. AZ law says that any firearm on school property must be unloaded and kept out of sight in the car. AZ does not have its own GFSZ.

    Since the Feds don't drive around making traffic stops or pedestrian stops, its a moot point here.
    Last edited by AZkopper; 07-29-2010 at 03:31 AM.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586
    I think the best way to challenge CA PC 626.9 is to first overturn the federal GFSZ act. If you challenge the state act, the state judges will probably just say it is a "reasonable restriction" on the right to bear arms. I'd like to get a federal case (preferably from SCOTUS) to cram down these Cali judges throats.

    Either way, it's gonna take a LOT of money, and since all the "right people" are CCW-first advocates, the GFSZ is low on their list. (CCW holders are exempt while CCing.)
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

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