• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Written Exemption of 626.9: Good enough for Federal GFSZ?

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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?
 

mjones

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
976
Location
Prescott, AZ
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;
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

hgreen

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
470
Location
Centreville, VA
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.
 

Charles E. Nichols

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
65
18 u.s.c. § 922

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.

Hi Harley,

I just heard from Jason. It turns out Jim had asked the same question of the RCC as he asked of me, and it wound up in Jason's lap.

Jason and I gave identical answers. Provided that the simple changes were made, the letter is fine for the locals. However, there is always the chance that the Feds will still prosecute under the Federal law.

Getting back to your original question and the follow-ups, a simple written permission does not constitute a contract. However, it is a trivial matter to write a contract to exempt oneself under the Federal law.

Charles
 

Charles E. Nichols

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
65
Elements of a contract

Example wording?

I can write up a simple contract for Jim and then we can post both it and his PC 626.9(b) letter on the forum as a template for others to use.

Basically, there are elements to a contract and the contract must be drawn so that it conforms to both California and Federal law. Normally, one would be writing a contract so that neither of the parties can contest it. In this case, it will need to be written so that a Federal prosecutor can't make the case that it is not a valid contract, either under California State or Federal law.

I write this with my usual caveat that the US Supreme Court has twice issued opinions stating that "actual "innocence" is insufficient grounds not to be convicted and sent to prison or even executed.

If a trial, or appellate judge wishes to declare, as a matter of law, that the contract is actually a taco del grande and therefore not admissible, he can. Skeptics need look no further than the Brian Aitkencase.

And so, having perfectly valid papers, complying with the letter of the law to the last dotted "i" and crossed "t" is no guarantee that one won't find himself looking at the world from behind a set of bars.
 

Charles E. Nichols

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
65
Enforcement of the Federal Gun Free School Zone law in California.

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?

"Enforcing" is a broad term.

In 1991, the California Supreme Court declared that there is no such thing as a crime against an individual, there are only crimes against the state. I mention this for the benefit of any legal historians who might happen across this thread. This decision precludes any private criminal prosecution.

I do not know of any mechanism by which a private person may pursue a Federal, private criminal prosecution. This leaves state, local and Federal law enforcement agents with the authority to make an arrest for violation of a Federal statute.

Citizen's arrest in the "sue me" state for violations of California law are problematic at best. For Federal crimes, it is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.

Prosecution for violation of the Federal statute can only take place in a Federal Court after one has been indicted by a Federal grand jury. Contrary to what one sees on television, an FBI agent can not make an arrest without first obtaining an indictment.

With rare exceptions, such as an arrest to prevent the commission of a Federal crime, Federal law enforcement officers are prevented from enforcing state or local law.

In recent years, local law enforcement agencies have created joint state and federal task forces to target certain criminals. I would hope that they are mindful of their respective roles and limitations.

California has a statute permitting Federal law enforcement to make arrests for violating state crimes. I've not run across an appellate decision upholding that statute but its legality is dubious, combined with the DOJ directive instructing FBI agents who have been deputized as Federal Marshals; it is highly unlikely for circumstances to arise for an arrest to be made under the California statute.

I have not read the court documents on the Arizona immigration law that was recently passed and so I can not comment on anything specific to the case other than to say, long before we had modern police forces, local law enforcement has always had the authority to make an arrest for violation of Federal statutes.

Personally, I don't see the current US Supreme Court changing that.

I have read the law that was passed, its provision that everything in it should be interpreted to comply with Federal law makes it unlikely that any section will eventually be overturned, if there is an ambiguity, the Courts are free to interpret the ambiguity in favor of Federal law.
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
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:

Charles E. Nichols

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
65
My point is that the feds don't have a "free hand" while plying their LEO trade within the fifty states.

markm

This and your other points are well taken. I should point out that I am not an attorney, although I consider myself to be "well read" in the law.

Last year, Utah passed a law making it a crime for Federal officers to enforce state and local laws. I suggested to the author of the law that he add a provision to allow private prosecutions just in case the local D.A. is shy about prosecuting.

He said he would bring it up in the next session.
 

yawn

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
40
Location
west
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!
 

yawn

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
40
Location
west
Wow... California makes everything difficult by not being shall issue...

Thanks for the link!
 

yawn

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
40
Location
west
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?
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 
Top