PDA

View Full Version : AB668 passed out of P S committee


Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 10:30 AM
AB668 extends gun free zone from 1000' to 1500'.

Jpach
04-21-2009, 10:32 AM
What!!! Link?!?!

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 10:34 AM
What!!! Link?!?!

I was listening to streaming audio.

demnogis
04-21-2009, 1:41 PM
Great... There goes Sterile Carry in pretty much any city. Couple this with shall-issue being shot down... Entire cities will become "Gun Free Zones", Unarmed Civilian Zones or Defenseless Victim Zones.

CowboyShooter
04-21-2009, 1:47 PM
Great... There goes Sterile Carry in pretty much any city. Couple this with shall-issue being shot down... Entire cities will become "Gun Free Zones", Unarmed Civilian Zones or Defenseless Victim Zones.

Criminals prefer the term "target rich environment"




:43:

Untamed1972
04-21-2009, 2:20 PM
OMG!!! 1500ft!! That's over a quarter of a mile. That's 500yards...a pretty long shot for even a good marksman with a scoped rifle. What the heck do they think someone is gonna do from a 1/4 mile away.

Sucks for me....I live on a deadend street and cannot leave my house w/o being within 1500ft of a school.

Dr Rockso
04-21-2009, 3:02 PM
Blessing in disguise perhaps...if it were to pass the assembly it might give CGF standing to pursue an injunction and have a court finally look at some of this stuff from a 2nd amendment standpoint.

One thing to note; that extra 500 foot radius more than doubles the area of the disarmed victim zone.

bulgron
04-21-2009, 3:11 PM
It's certainly going to give us reason to argue what a sensitive area is, isn't it?

This bill seems to be the inevitable backlash against UOC. But it's so extreme that I think it'll actually make our lives easier when we go to court to argue over sensitive areas.

One things for sure, it looks like the state actively wants to argue these issues in court. Let the games begin!

DDT
04-21-2009, 3:17 PM
I don't believe it can withstand constitutional scrutiny but it is yet another thing that will have to be litigated. At least in this case it was going to eventually be litigated anyway because even the 1000' radius was an abuse of "sensitive places," this just gives us a stronger case.

there are so many areas that need changing and only so much time and money to do it all. I really hope there is federal preemption coming down the pike.

mblat
04-21-2009, 3:36 PM
OMG!!! 1500ft!! That's over a quarter of a mile. That's 500yards...a pretty long shot for even a good marksman with a scoped rifle. What the heck do they think someone is gonna do from a 1/4 mile away.

Sucks for me....I live on a deadend street and cannot leave my house w/o being within 1500ft of a school.

They don't THINK. It is pure retaliation move because of UOC movement. If they would THINK they would realize that this will likely to cause this entire law to be tested in courts....

gcvt
04-21-2009, 3:38 PM
That would put me 'in the zone' of two schools that I live between.

This just doesn't make any sense. Did something happen 1382 feet from a school that makes this necessary? :rolleyes:

DisgruntledReaper
04-21-2009, 3:42 PM
Gee I cant have a loaded firearm in my garage or backyard anymore.......FUG EM! If I am on my property and defending myself..........what a bunch of )&%%$&^^*@$#@!!@@*(#^&%#*#(&*$^$%^&^I)()(*OIU&*&^)(*H!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
-sorry,i am back now.....

Librarian
04-21-2009, 3:48 PM
Gee I cant have a loaded firearm in my garage or backyard anymore.......FUG EM! If I am on my property and defending myself..........what a bunch of )&%%$&^^*@$#@!!@@*(#^&%#*#(&*$^$%^&^I)()(*OIU&*&^)(*H!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
-sorry,i am back now.....

The GFSZ restrictions DO NOT APPLY in your home or on your private property (with the added practical restriction of restricted access, which ordinarily your back yard meets but your front yard may not - stupid and unobvious, but seems to be supported by case law).

The whole GFSZ concept is based on wishful thinking. It should go away entirely.

Vtec44
04-21-2009, 3:59 PM
They can see that they will slowly extend the zone to like 30 miles radius and claim "sensitive area" to disarm everyone.

yellowfin
04-21-2009, 4:14 PM
The whole GFSZ concept is based on wishful thinking. It should go away entirely. The goal of making as much area as possible into GFZ's to make gun ownership and carry impractical to impossible isn't just a wish, they got it.

Roadrunner
04-21-2009, 4:23 PM
I think what needs to happen is an injunction against gun free zones filed and supported by evidence that they do nothing to protect the disarmed and everything to infringe upon 2A rights. "Sensitive area" is another euphemism like "gun free zone" that tugs at people's emotions and makes everyone there a potential victim.

Uxi
04-21-2009, 5:04 PM
The GFSZ restrictions DO NOT APPLY in your home or on your private property (with the added practical restriction of restricted access, which ordinarily your back yard meets but your front yard may not - stupid and unobvious, but seems to be supported by case law).


:thumbsup:


The whole GFSZ concept is based on wishful thinking. It should go away entirely.

Most definitely.

nick
04-21-2009, 5:33 PM
The goal of making as much area as possible into GFZ's to make gun ownership and carry impractical to impossible isn't just a wish, they got it.

He was referring the the possibility that "they" actually wanted to make schools safer with this law. I know it's a remote possibility, but it may exist. The choice here is between whether "they" are stupid or malicious.

obeygiant
04-29-2009, 7:50 PM
What!!! Link?!?!

AB668 as ammended (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090413_amended_asm_v98.html)

BobB35
05-06-2009, 8:21 PM
What happened to this bill today?

Librarian
05-06-2009, 9:54 PM
What happened to this bill today?

Bill page not yet updated - see
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161600 late tomorrow or http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu whenever you like.

Note that the bill analysis for Appropriations says FISCAL EFFECT

1)Increased annual GF costs, potentially in the range of
$250,000, for increased state incarceration as a result of
increasing the boundaries of a K-12 school zone. In 2007 and
2008, combined, 45 persons were committed to state prison for
possession of a gun in a school zone under the subdivisions
addressed in this bill. If extending a school zone from 1,000
to 1,500 feet results in a 10% increase in state prison
commitments for unlawful gun possession, the annual GF costs
would exceed $200,000.

2)Unknown annual nonreimbursable local costs, likely in the
range of hundreds of thousands of dollars, for increased
incarceration as a result of exposing more persons to the
county jail penalties and mandatory 90-day minimum jail terms
for possessing a gun in a school zone.

so this may be already on suspense, if $150K is the trigger.

yellowfin
05-06-2009, 10:08 PM
Shouldn't they include the cost of possible lawsuits? :43:

gotgunz
05-07-2009, 12:08 AM
See?

UOC has effected radical changes as expected! :thumbsup::rolleyes:

Good thing there is an exemption for ccw (right or privilege it is still an exemption) ... :D

KWA-S
05-07-2009, 1:31 AM
(2) When the firearm is an unloaded a
lawfully possessed pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed on the person is unloaded and is in a
locked container or within the inside a motor
vehicle or unloaded and inside a locked trunk of a motor
vehicle.
Hmm...looks like we lose the poor mans CCW there.

But, yeah, if this passes, it should be grounds to shoot down the whole law (at least, off campus) on the grounds of a de facto carry ban. Didnt someone make a map of all the public school zones of SF? Repost, please?