Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Written Exemption of 626.9: Good enough for Federal GFSZ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470

    Written Exemption of 626.9: Good enough for Federal GFSZ?

    Lets say one was to get written permission to carry a firearm in accordance with the law within 1000' of a k-12 school by the district super.

    That now exempts you from 626.9, but what about the Federal GFSZ law?
    Is that law enforced in CA as a primary offense?

    For example,
    I'm trying to get 626.9 exemption for SBOC to march in a parade, would we run risk of the federal law being enforced by despite the written exemption?

    I see there is an exemption that may apply for a "parade program":
    (iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
    What are your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member mjones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SoCal, , USA
    Posts
    979
    Quote Originally Posted by hgreen View Post
    Lets say one was to get written permission to carry a firearm in accordance with the law within 1000' of a k-12 school by the district super.

    That now exempts you from 626.9, but what about the Federal GFSZ law?
    Is that law enforced in CA as a primary offense?

    If you get 'permission' I think you may be covered via
    18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(v)

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
    firearm
    (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
    between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
    employer of the individual;

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by mjones View Post
    If you get 'permission' I think you may be covered via
    18 U.S.C. 922(q)(2)(B)(v)

    (B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a
    firearm
    (v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into
    between a school in the school zone and the individual or an
    employer of the individual;
    This was also my understanding of how written permission would get around the federal GFSZ act.

  4. #4
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Has anyone on these forums or know of someone that has actually received this type of exemption (not just for a parade) and what the wording of the letter was like?

    I'm working with someone right now who has a very favorable chance of getting just such a letter and we want to make sure it is solid for the federal law too.

  5. #5
    Regular Member hgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Centreville, VA
    Posts
    470
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles E. Nichols View Post
    However, it is a trivial matter to write a contract to exempt oneself under the Federal law.
    Example wording?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Well, let's see, over in Arizona the "federal" government is objecting to Arizona enforcing federal law, and they've even filed a lawsuit to prevent the enforcement. So, who would enforce the federal GFSZ law in California?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Charles E. Nichols, thanks for your informative responses.

    Thanks for a well informed and very interesting response. I wish other lawyers on this site were as positive and instructive as you are.

    Below is somewhat OT:

    I have been reading the Forest Service Manual (FSM). I LOC and UOC on Forest Service "owned" land and try to keep myself informed about these laws and jurisdictional issues.

    I find parallels in the FSM about what you wrote regarding a federal LEO enforcing state law. I have a nephew and niece, one works as a LEO for the FS and the other for NPS (National Park Service). To put it mildly, they are rather ignorant regarding the line of demarcation between federal and state jurisdictions when they are working within a state. They tell me I am wrong. As my wife has stated to them, many police officers don't know the law. My niece did not know that she must follow state gun laws when enforcing the new law regarding guns in national parks.

    5360.11 - State and Local Law Enforcement on National Forest
    System Lands. State and local law enforcement agencies generally
    have the same authorities and responsibilities on National Forest
    System lands as they do elsewhere in their respective
    jurisdictions (16 U.S.C. 480).

    ...Generally, the sheriff or equivalent officer
    has the responsibility for enforcement of local and State laws
    for protecting persons and their property. However, in some
    States, a State police agency or equivalent thereof may have the
    responsibility. (16 U.S.C. 551a).

    5360.33 - State Deputization of Forest Service Law Enforcement
    Personnel. When practical, Special Agents in Charge may
    authorize, under 16 U.S.C. 553, 559d(5), or 559g(c), law
    enforcement personnel to be deputized by State law enforcement
    agencies to aid in the enforcement of State laws (FSM 5303). In
    exercising this authority, the Special Agent in Charge ensures
    that there is an agency basis or interest to be served or gained
    by the deputization so requested. The Special Agent in Charge
    may approve the required memorandum of understanding between the
    commissioning agency and affected units.

    Yosemite National Park (YNP) is a different Story. YNP was "regranted" by the Kali Legislature back to the federal gubmint. Congress accepted the "recession." YNP is a federal reservation and state law is not enforceable there. This is why YNP has its own jail; and shooting prohibitions enacted by NPS are valid in YNP.

    Shooting prohibitions enacted by a FS Supervisor may be unenforcable because under state law, only a Board of Supervisors or the legislature can prohibit shooting on unicorportated land (sorry that I am not citing this law).

    Read sections titled 1905 and 1906:
    http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/enabling_leg.htm

    My point is that the feds don't have a "free hand" while plying their LEO trade within the fifty states.

    markm
    Last edited by MarkBofRAdvocate; 01-12-2011 at 11:50 PM. Reason: Add disclaimer: I believe the citations are the most recent versions; however, I am not sure!

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    west
    Posts
    40
    pushing past fear of sounding like an ignoramous... let me ask something here. I currently live in Oregon. Here, if someone has a Conceal Carry License, they can carry onto school grounds. I have never heard of a federal GFZ... can someone please enlighten me? Thanks!

  9. #9
    Regular Member oldbanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    beckofbeyond - Idaho
    Posts
    476
    Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Fre...es_Act_of_1990

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    west
    Posts
    40
    Wow... California makes everything difficult by not being shall issue...

    Thanks for the link!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    west
    Posts
    40
    one more question along these lines... if I have a lawfully transported firearm in the trunk of my car, could I pull into the school for say a parent meeting and still lawfully have the gun in the trunk of the car in a locked container. According to the Feds, it would seem yes, but does Cali tighten this up a bit?

  12. #12
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by yawn View Post
    one more question along these lines... if I have a lawfully transported firearm in the trunk of my car, could I pull into the school for say a parent meeting and still lawfully have the gun in the trunk of the car in a locked container. According to the Feds, it would seem yes, but does Cali tighten this up a bit?
    I believe you can carry a firearm onto school property provided that it is in a fully-enclosed, locked container. The trunk of your car classifies as a locked container under California law, so there's no need to put your firearm in a locked container and then put it in your trunk.

    Where you may be in trouble is CA PC 30310 which covers "carrying" of ammunition on school grounds. There's no exemption for a locked container for 30310, but it only covers "carrying". It's worth noting that CA PC 626.91 states that, "Possession of ammunition on school grounds is governed by Section 30310." So is possession of ammo the same as the carrying of ammo? Would having ammo in the trunk of your car count as possession or carrying? I do not know.

Posting Permissions

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