PDA

View Full Version : 626.9 UOC questions


pullnshoot25
05-04-2009, 12:42 PM
Ok guys, got a question here...

Scenario:

Let's say there are two schools in a given area and you want to OC in an area that is within the 1000 foot zone for both schools. You ask permission from both and one grants permission and the other denies it.

Question: where does that leave the OCer? Go or no go?

demnogis
05-04-2009, 12:44 PM
I would have to say you would still be charged with 626.9 violation because you did not have permission from both schools.

pullnshoot25
05-04-2009, 12:55 PM
That's what I figured. As an added question, I am assuming there is nothing in any code to imply some schools have seniority, eg public over private, etc?

demnogis
05-04-2009, 1:09 PM
No school has seniority. I believe you would need permission from all school superintendents in that 1000' zone.

JDoe
05-04-2009, 1:31 PM
Ok guys, got a question here...

Scenario:

Let's say there are two schools in a given area and you want to OC in an area that is within the 1000 foot zone for both schools. You ask permission from both and one grants permission and the other denies it.

Question: where does that leave the OCer? Go or no go?

Ok I'm not a lawyer, don't know anything and offer no advice legal or otherwise but the code reads that the written permission for a school zone...

(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.

...is given by one person namely "the school district superintendent, his or her
designee, or equivalent school authority" so unless the school zones are in different districts it seems like you would only need permission from one person.

How come you have to talk to two people to get written permission? Are the two school zones in question in different districts or is there a different designee for each school zone?

(b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person
knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, as defined in
paragraph (1) of subdivision (e), unless it is with the written
permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
designee, or equivalent school authority, shall be punished as
specified in subdivision (f).

demnogis
05-04-2009, 2:00 PM
If one school is private and the other public... Public School Districts have no say over private schools.

xxdabroxx
05-04-2009, 2:15 PM
do private schools count? I guess they would so long as they are k-12

TheBundo
05-04-2009, 2:26 PM
Open Carry, lone wolf style, is a waste of time and more than likely harmful to our cause, IMO

demnogis
05-04-2009, 2:38 PM
Open Carry, lone wolf style, is a waste of time and more than likely harmful to our cause, IMO

Only if your cause is to ensure a privilege and not a right :)

pullnshoot25
05-04-2009, 2:46 PM
Open Carry, lone wolf style, is a waste of time and more than likely harmful to our cause, IMO

You know TedBundo, er,TheBundo, you have been saying some sort of anti-OC bullcrap on nearly every UOC/LOC thread I have ever been on. In response to your oft-repeated, baseless and stale opinion, I shall quote Mark Twain.

“In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.”

I can hardly wait to see your complaining when LOC is fully legal.

DDT
05-04-2009, 4:11 PM
do private schools count? I guess they would so long as they are k-12

YES.

MudCamper
05-04-2009, 4:36 PM
I see where you're headed. You're in an area that is a school zone due to a local public K-12 school. But your sister/neighbor/whoever also home-schools in the same neighborhood. You get permission to carry from the home school. Will that work for the public school also? Clever try, but I'd bet no. You're just gonna get charged with a single count of 626.9 instead of two counts.

anthonyca
05-04-2009, 4:52 PM
I see where you're headed. You're in an area that is a school zone due to a local public K-12 school. But your sister/neighbor/whoever also home-schools in the same neighborhood. You get permission to carry from the home school. Will that work for the public school also? Clever try, but I'd bet no. You're just gonna get charged with a single count of 626.9 instead of two counts.

Do home schools count? You have got to be kidding me if they do.

pullnshoot25
05-04-2009, 6:15 PM
I suppose home schools would work but that is pretty sketchy... or something.

CitaDeL
05-04-2009, 6:37 PM
I suppose home schools would work but that is pretty sketchy... or something.

Here's why its sketchy.

626.9 basically says in order to violate the code, you would know or reasonably know you were in a school zone. When you are in a neighborhood where someone is home schooling their children, how can one know or reasonably know the area could be considered a school zone? Since homes are not marked as home schools there is nothing that would indicate them as a school or a school zone. Therefore, if you are not aware of where someone is homeschooling, you do not need to seek out their permission. Further, homeschoolers are not a school superintendent or their equivelent- they are just homeschoolers administering the education of their own children. The only authorities you would need permission from would be the superintendent of the school zone you were to be in. Superintendents usually cover districts rather than individual schools- but I dont think that this benefits anyone, as they are not likely to offer written permission of any kind anyway.

On the issue that Mudcamper raised... regardless of how many school zones one might be in, I believe it would only one count of 626.9- if you were in 5 seperate school zones at the same time (which in some areas, Im sure is possible), you would still only be charged for the one violation.

avdrummerboy
05-04-2009, 7:42 PM
Ah, the anti OC folks, gotta love them. Me, I plan on OC'ing, if you don't fight for it you will loose it.

GuyW
05-04-2009, 8:18 PM
Further, homeschoolers are not a school superintendent or their equivelent- they are just homeschoolers administering the education of their own children.

No - home schools are private schools under the CA Ed Code.
.

pullnshoot25
05-04-2009, 8:28 PM
So I requested a 626.9 exemption from a few schools in my area and guess who just took a gander at my blog....

http://www.***enfriedman.com/

HAHA!

ETA: the starred out letters are f-a-genfriedman.com

CitaDeL
05-04-2009, 8:38 PM
No - home schools are private schools under the CA Ed Code.
.

Okay. They are private schools.

Did that change the fact that no one announces their whereabouts and no one can reasonably know where homeschools are?

GuyW
05-05-2009, 7:54 AM
Okay. They are private schools.

Did that change the fact that no one announces their whereabouts and no one can reasonably know where homeschools are?

No.

It just means that they are included within the statute.

Shows that the law is even more rediculous....
.

DDT
05-05-2009, 12:43 PM
Okay. They are private schools.

Did that change the fact that no one announces their whereabouts and no one can reasonably know where homeschools are?

No, but it does mean that you might need a letter to visit your friends house, or carry within 1000' of their home if you know they are homeschoolers. It would be difficult to claim you couldn't be expected to reasonably know it's a school if it's your best friend or your brother.

demnogis
05-05-2009, 1:26 PM
So, seeing how obfuscated and over-reaching this law is... Can more of you see why this law needs to be struck down and have an injunction filed against it?

If your neighbor home-schooled and you even carried your firearm in a non-12026.1 compliant (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.1.html) case from your house to your car, you could be charged with a 626.9 violation.

DDT
05-05-2009, 1:34 PM
So, seeing how obfuscated and over-reaching this law is... Can more of you see why this law needs to be struck down and have an injunction filed against it?

If your neighbor home-schooled and you even carried your firearm in a non-12026.1 compliant (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.1.html) case from your house to your car, you could be charged with a 626.9 violation.

Not if your car is in a non-public part of your property. That being said, this needs to go away. There are a lot of irons in the fire right now for second amendment rights and I'm sure this will be one of those eventually but it isn't the top 5 issues and money and mindshare aren't unlimited.

GuyW
05-05-2009, 1:45 PM
So, seeing how obfuscated and over-reaching this law is... Can more of you see why this law needs to be struck down and have an injunction filed against it?

If your neighbor home-schooled and you even carried your firearm in a non-12026.1 compliant (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12026.1.html) case from your house to your car, you could be charged with a 626.9 violation.


Dang - we made our neighbors criminals, and neither they nor I (at the time) knew it!

On the other hand, I am the Superintendant, so I can write a letter...

.

demnogis
05-05-2009, 2:08 PM
All of us should have neighbors like you who are willing to do so.

But... What if someone ends up having an anti-gun neighbor who home-schools their kids?

Unless your property is behind a locking/lockable fence [making it private], walking to-from your house to your car or garage to your car is considered in public.

Dang - we made our neighbors criminals, and neither they nor I (at the time) knew it!

On the other hand, I am the Superintendant, so I can write a letter...

Theseus
05-05-2009, 9:49 PM
Where are you all getting this public place vs private property crap?

The law doesn't say "public place". My neighbor could home school and I can carry my gun to my car without a case because I am on private property.

GuyW
05-06-2009, 10:58 AM
Where are you all getting this public place vs private property crap?

....because I am on private property.

Case law, Overturf in particular (but not solely). Search "Overturf" here at Calguns.

The law doesn't say "public place".

And that helps your argument?
.

pullnshoot25
05-06-2009, 11:22 AM
Well, just got a note from one of the local schools and I have been... *drumroll*.... DENIED!

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/th_mydenialletter-1.jpg (http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/?action=view&current=mydenialletter-1.jpg)

GuyW
05-06-2009, 11:26 AM
Well, just got a note from one of the local schools and I have been... *drumroll*.... DENIED!

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/th_mydenialletter-1.jpg (http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/?action=view&current=mydenialletter-1.jpg)

Another anti-gun slimeball in the education system...
.

N6ATF
05-06-2009, 11:46 AM
Another pro-criminal-safety slimeball in the education system...
.

Fixed.

GuyW
05-06-2009, 12:11 PM
Fixed.

I'm unhappy that you didn't see fit to expand on "slimeball"....
.

Theseus
05-06-2009, 1:08 PM
Case law, Overturf in particular (but not solely). Search "Overturf" here at Calguns.



And that helps your argument?
.

Overturf has nothing to do with school zones. It has to do with carry. Overturf does not effect 626.9 or its exemptions. 626.9 does not ANYWHERE in the language use "public place" or "publically accessable" or anything of the direct nature.

N6ATF
05-06-2009, 1:23 PM
I'm unhappy that you didn't see fit to expand on "slimeball"....
.

:rolleyes:

CitaDeL
05-06-2009, 1:33 PM
Well, just got a note from one of the local schools and I have been... *drumroll*.... DENIED!

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/th_mydenialletter-1.jpg (http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/?action=view&current=mydenialletter-1.jpg)

God bless you Nate. I love your enthusiasm for the follow through. And this is exactly the response I would have anticipated getting. I'd say it is a classic example of a small fish allowed to rule the big pond. Given the opportunity to have a say in the affairs that would otherwise be outside the scope of their influence, of course they will say no. They have been given a thousand feet of extra reach and they will not let go in light of the belief that if any harm came to the children that they are responsible for, they would be liable if they gave permission to someone to simply possess an unloaded, unlocked, uncased, holstered firearm.

I think it is hysterical that they added that if they questioned the validity of a "permit' that they would consult with EPD. They have no more ability to question a licensee or someone who is otherwise authorized than any other bystander- the most they could do in the event a licensee with a firearm was 'made' would be to call EPD. This is an attempt at a threat that falls flat on it face. I think quoting the great and vernerated sage Bugs Bunny is appropo- "What a maroon!" and I might add a raspberry for punctuation.

GuyW
05-06-2009, 1:33 PM
Overturf has nothing to do with school zones. It has to do with carry. Overturf does not effect 626.9 or its exemptions.

Overturf directly impacts the question of, "what is private property vs public place", which had to be addressed before the question of "carry" could be decided.

Since the school zone law covers all land within 1000 ft (with exceptions), possessing unlocked handguns on open private property which fronts a public street (with school zone) is a huge gray area in this school zone mess, IMHO.

.

demnogis
05-06-2009, 2:11 PM
More ammo to strike down the 626.9 penal code IMHO. How can an individual representative of the government deprive you of your RKBA without due process? That's exactly what the "beg for permission" part of the law is.

pullnshoot25
05-06-2009, 9:17 PM
Got my second letter. I totally love how I am painted as some warmonger.

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/th_escondidodenial.jpg (http://s353.photobucket.com/albums/r369/calgunfun2/?action=view&current=escondidodenial.jpg)

Theseus
05-06-2009, 10:14 PM
IIRC Overturf however was about LOADED 12031, NOT possession, 626.9.

For the purposes of 12031, a place can be a public place even though it is private property, but for 626.9 it doesn't effect it. The reason for this belief, 12031 uses the language of private property vs public places whereas 626.9 does not!

626.9 is in no way effected by the definition of private property vs public place as applied in Overturf.

But, IANAL.


Overturf directly impacts the question of, "what is private property vs public place", which had to be addressed before the question of "carry" could be decided.

Since the school zone law covers all land within 1000 ft (with exceptions), possessing unlocked handguns on open private property which fronts a public street (with school zone) is a huge gray area in this school zone mess, IMHO.

.