AB 668 - Expands school zones from 1000' to 1500'

[Librarian]

While we are all hammering the Senate about AB 962, let us not forget this other bit of idiocy.

AB 668 - Lieu - school zone 1500"
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu
STATUS: PASSED ASSEMBLY
TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON RULES for assignment
HEARING:
AMENDED: (c)(5) definition of 'school facility' EXCLUDES driveways and parking lots of K-12

An earlier thread is here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=162503

Same contact info as AB 962 will work.

[jello2594]

Thank you. I called all Senators regarding this bill this morning.

[DDT]

the further they extend the school zone the harder it is to defend as "sensitive areas" especially since there is a CCW permit exemption. It is not likely to survive review.

[truthseeker]

Does anyone still have that map of California that shows the circles around the schools of 1000 feet around them?

[Scratch705]

wait does the original bill cover people living near schools or just people transporting firearms within the zone? cause i read the new revision which also have the old bill text, and it says it doesn't apply to a private residence? but i want to make sure

[toopercentmlk]

Does anyone still have that map of California that shows the circles around the schools of 1000 feet around them?
Yea, why don't they extend the school zones to a mile radius so they overlap the entire state! :mad:

[1911_Mitch]

Is there any Economic analysis attached to this bill???

If not why not? IIRC, just about every school has a sign that indiactes it as a 'school zone', both fore and aft.

How much is it going to cost the state to change the location of all the signs?

If someone can raise this point, considering the economic situation of the state, it would surely fail.

[SJgunguy24]

Is there any Economic analysis attached to this bill???

If not why not? IIRC, just about every school has a sign that indiactes it as a 'school zone', both fore and aft.

How much is it going to cost the state to change the location of all the signs?

If someone can raise this point, considering the economic situation of the state, it would surely fail.

Do you really expect those idiots in Sacramento to use common sense and reason? Thats all checked in at the Yolo county line.

[pointedstick]

The map of school zones with red circles is here. (http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/#)

[The-Warden]

so when does this go active?

[hvengel]

The map of school zones with red circles is here. (http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/#)

Had a look. This map appears to be missing some schools. For example it is missing a scool near where I live. So do not rely on this map.

Also the increase from 1000 feet to 1500 feet increases the area covered by a factor 2.25. So it more than doubles the area where the law applies.

[domokun]

so when does this go active?

It goes active if it ever passes out of the legislature and the Governator signs it into law.

[Librarian]

wait does the original bill cover people living near schools or just people transporting firearms within the zone? cause i read the new revision which also have the old bill text, and it says it doesn't apply to a private residence? but i want to make sure

Current law exempts private residences, and the bill would not change that.

The GFSZ law covers transport through the zone and possession on school grounds.

See http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones

[FastFinger]

I'm not much on the hows and why of legislative action, but I really want to know how this proposed law is justified?

Has there been a plethora of students being injured by gunfire that originated 1,000 - 1,500 feet from school boundaries?

Back in high school debates every intro argument started with "Whereas..." at which point I'd list a few facts that explain why my case even deserved to be presented.

This proposal sounds like an answer to the question no one asked.

With the state falling of a financial cliff anyone pol wasting more than a second of time or a single page of paper on this scam should be ashamed and run out of Sacto on rails.

[Librarian]

Is there any Economic analysis attached to this bill???

If not why not? IIRC, just about every school has a sign that indiactes it as a 'school zone', both fore and aft.

How much is it going to cost the state to change the location of all the signs?

If someone can raise this point, considering the economic situation of the state, it would surely fail.

Those school zone signs are not at the current 1000' distance; they're for establishing the 25 mph speed limit near schools.

CVC 22352 (a)(2)(B) says For purposes of this subparagraph, standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
so we know the signs are probably not much further out than that 500 feet. There's no relationship between those signs and the PC GFSZ (except if you see one, you're at least 500 feet inside!)

BTW, since those signs are the means by which one might reasonably know one was in a school zone of any kind, I think one might argue they define the enforceable limit.

[Librarian]

It goes active if it ever passes out of the legislature and the Governator signs it into law.

... the effective date of which, if it passes this term, would be Jan 1, 2010.

[N6ATF]

Has there been a plethora of students being injured by gunfire that originated 1,000 - 1,500 feet from school boundaries?

Nope, a bunch of criminals chose not to commit crime there because it was not a victim disarmament zone. If the legislature couldn't benefit its fellow criminals, it would shut down. Ultimately they will not be satisfied until the whole state is a victim disarmament zone and their fellow criminals have absolute power to end law-abiding citizens' lives.

[Librarian]

Had a look. This map appears to be missing some schools. For example it is missing a scool near where I live. So do not rely on this map.
The map is marked 'for entertainment purposes only'.

Of course it's a bare approximation. The school properties are not circular, and a circle centered on a street address or in the center of the property would not define the zone - one school property in my neighborhood is over 1000' wide, so a 1000' circle set at its street address leaves the eastern part of the circle inside the school property.

That's one of the reasons the whole 'zone' idea is flawed - it would take an army of surveyors to establish where the actual boundaries are. That task ought to be given to the authorities who choose to enforce this, and all prosecutions for violations ought to be dismissed unless the enforcing agency can show it has created those accurate maps, and provided notice to the public by means of standardized signs.

[pullnshoot25]

The map is marked 'for entertainment purposes only'.

Of course it's a bare approximation. The school properties are not circular, and a circle centered on a street address or in the center of the property would not define the zone - one school property in my neighborhood is over 1000' wide, so a 1000' circle set at its street address leaves the eastern part of the circle inside the school property.

That's one of the reasons the whole 'zone' idea is flawed - it would take an army of surveyors to establish where the actual boundaries are. That task ought to be given to the authorities who choose to enforce this, and all prosecutions for violations ought to be dismissed unless the enforcing agency can show it has created those accurate maps, and provided notice to the public by means of standardized signs.

That would make too much sense...

Any news on where this bill is at? I haven't seen hide nor hair of it for a while.

[Librarian]

Passed Assembly 76-0. :confused: Not a single "no" vote?

It's in Senate Public Safety; no movement since 6/18, no hearing set.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu

[anthonyca]

Passed Assembly 76-0. :confused: Not a single "no" vote?

It's in Senate Public Safety; no movement since 6/18, no hearing set.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu

Just say a law is "for the chillllldreeennnnn" and it passes. No need to be constitutional or logical.

[obeygiant]

The map is marked 'for entertainment purposes only'.

Of course it's a bare approximation. The school properties are not circular, and a circle centered on a street address or in the center of the property would not define the zone - one school property in my neighborhood is over 1000' wide, so a 1000' circle set at its street address leaves the eastern part of the circle inside the school property.

That's one of the reasons the whole 'zone' idea is flawed - it would take an army of surveyors to establish where the actual boundaries are. That task ought to be given to the authorities who choose to enforce this, and all prosecutions for violations ought to be dismissed unless the enforcing agency can show it has created those accurate maps, and provided notice to the public by means of standardized signs.


The map was created by "Anony Mouse" (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=156779&highlight=gfsz) and it was as you said in your post purely for entertainment purposes. I really had no concept of how much the gfsz area really covered,even with it missing some of the schools, until I saw that map. For those interested you can take a look for your self here (http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz)

I have a current list of all the public,private and charter schools and eventually I will get them geocoded and added to Google Earth but I have yet to finish that project. Anyone that would like to help or has some knowledge of programming, feel free to send me a pm.

[hoffmang]

Passed Assembly 76-0. :confused: Not a single "no" vote?


This illustrates why I have warned folks that UOC may not get the outcomes we gunowners would like. The 1500' extension is a direct response to UOC in California.

-Gene

[nick]

But no official justification was given?

[N6ATF]

Passed Assembly 76-0. :confused: Not a single "no" vote?

It's in Senate Public Safety; no movement since 6/18, no hearing set.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu

Traitor Republicans strike again! DeVore, Anderson, and Villines, to name a few.

[demnogis]

The legislature's response to UOC in expanding GFSZs (if this really is it) should further illustrate the unconstitutionality of 626.9/626.95. You cannot exercise your right to bear arms in this zone because it's a school zone.

What would the response be if this were a controlled speech zone? Or warrant less search zone?

How can we get people involved enough to care about bad laws like this and obliterate them?

This illustrates why I have warned folks that UOC may not get the outcomes we gunowners would like. The 1500' extension is a direct response to UOC in California.

-Gene

[pullnshoot25]

This illustrates why I have warned folks that UOC may not get the outcomes we gunowners would like. The 1500' extension is a direct response to UOC in California.

-Gene

But no official justification was given?

According to Lieu's lackey, this bill was made to better incriminate drug dealers (allegedly). However, the issuance date of 12-23-08 is a scant 5 days prior to when Theseus posted his 626.9 issue (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=141061)(Interestingly enough, I received that particular memo on the 27th...). While one can see that OC is the true issue behind this expansion, I have to wonder if there are other people that are/were OCing in LA or TPTB are/were capitalizing on the singular Theseus incident.

[N6ATF]

Only thing is it still has the exception:

(1) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private
property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private
property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the
firearm is otherwise lawful.

So Theseus STILL couldn't have broken ANY LAW if a 1,500 foot victim disarmament zone was in place a year ago.

[cdtx2001]

Just say a law is "for the chillllldreeennnnn" and it passes. No need to be constitutional or logical.

George Carlin once said, "Politicians have traditionally hidden behind 3 things, the flag, the bible, and CHILDREN".

If school zones are increased that much, theoretically I could never leave my house with my guns as I live in a court and would become "boxed in". How are you supposed to even transport something through an area you can't even get around?

Like someone else said, might as well make them a mile. While they're at it, make it a condor zone as well. Make it a lead-free-condor-no-high-cap-single-shot-nuclear-free-drug-free-under-god-15mph-don't-forget-your-leash-and-pick-up-your-dog-poop-no-parking-no-fly-school-zone.

That will solve the crime problem!!!

[bodger]

According to Lieu's lackey, this bill was made to better incriminate drug dealers (allegedly)..

Drug dealers, people who legally own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment rights...same thing to these lawmakers these days it seems.

[bulgron]

Wasn't the safe school zone already struck down at the federal level? It seems like tossing the state-level law via the courts should therefore be easy. Or am I missing something?

We really do need to get rid of this idiot idea that a school zone extends past the edge of a school's property.

[7x57]

This illustrates why I have warned folks that UOC may not get the outcomes we gunowners would like. The 1500' extension is a direct response to UOC in California.


We probably get it now whether we like it or not. Is there any chance that we can make lemonade and use this to make a better argument in court, come some fine post-Sykes day when we take California to court over the Right to Bear? Or do you think our chances are the same either way?

7x57

[7x57]

Wasn't the safe school zone already struck down at the federal level? It seems like tossing the state-level law via the courts should therefore be easy. Or am I missing something?


I believe the original federal school zone law was struck down as (gasp!) unconstitutional. It was re-passed as an identical bill plus the magic incantation "we're doing this under the powers of the magic Commerce Clause genie, so just bite me judge!"

Possibly they managed to phrase it more politely. :rolleyes:

So far as I know the new, even more magical version has never been tested in court, probably because the feds think they might lose. I would hate to be test-case-guy, however, since there are probably a decent number of federal judges who would absolutely disregard the law. Only a real cynic would suggest that they are probably saving it to roll the dice on someone they *reaallly* want to get and don't have evidence of a real crime against. :TFH:

So I guess the good question is whether Incorporation makes the state school zone laws vulnerable or not. I would think that Incorporation means the states can't do anything the feds can't do, and might even argue that that is the only rational interpretation. But what will actually happen in court is way too practical and technical for me, because the courts aren't terrible rational when their buttons are pushed (guns! children! schools! famine, vikings, and the plague!).

I'm sure Gene has thought a lot about it though, because they'd have to have the answer to decide if and when to attack the school zone law. Apparently the answer was that CCW, at least, came first.

7x57

[bulgron]

I'm sure Gene has thought a lot about it though, because they'd have to have the answer to decide if and when to attack the school zone law. Apparently the answer was that CCW, at least, came first.

7x57

Yes, CCW comes first. That much is clear.

It seems to me that post-incorporation, the logic flow in the courts should be:

1. open carry outside the home is constitutionally protected

2. define 'sensitive area' to mean they care enough to put armed guards and/or metal detectors there

3. point out that a 1500' safe school zone can't possibly be a sensitive area.

Possibly collapse 2 & 3 into one case? Or can we do all three in one frightening nail-biter of a case?

I don't see any reason why these things have to wait on a decision on the CCW case, except for resource reasons. But we need incorporation nailed down first before we go any further.

Hmmm.... 7 more days for the en banc deadline....

[7x57]

I don't see any reason why these things have to wait on a decision on the CCW case, except for resource reasons.

I assume that Gene's answer is the same as always--he's pretty sure we can get LOC after shall-issue and have both, but if we get LOC first we stand a good chance of losing shall-issue CCW in California forever.

The big win in the end is worth waiting for CCW to be resolved.

7x57

[Flintlock Tom]

This illustrates why I have warned folks that UOC may not get the outcomes we gunowners would like. The 1500' extension is a direct response to UOC in California.

-Gene

Gene,
I have read the analysis of the bill provided here:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_668/

and cannot find any reference to UOC. The stated motivation is to make PC 626 consistent with SB 1666.
Could you provide a reference or resource which supports your contention?

[bwiese]

Gene,
I have read the analysis of the bill provided here:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_668/

and cannot find any reference to UOC. The stated motivation is to make PC 626 consistent with SB 1666.
Could you provide a reference or resource which supports your contention?

Tom,

You have to 'read between the lines'. It doesn't have to be mentioned specifically.

And I think CA gunnies should have learned by now to most always never trust legislators' "stated motivations".

In many areas, there are tons of K-5, middle, and high schools. Increasing the distance to 1500' radically increases the probability
of intersecting a school's "sphere of control" , effectively blocking many key roadways from allowing open firearms conveyance esp in suburban areas. Right now it's hard enough to find lotsa clear paths in urban areas for UOC, and this will just extend that problem into suburbs/exurbs.

Also passage of such a law allows an easier future update - "hey we did it once, we can do it again".

[hoffmang]

Gene,
I have read the analysis of the bill provided here:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_668/

and cannot find any reference to UOC. The stated motivation is to make PC 626 consistent with SB 1666.
Could you provide a reference or resource which supports your contention?

Tom,

You've spoken (and not liked what you heard) to someone who can vouch that this extension is about UOC. I suggest you would have to prove the other side that there was some incident where a drug dealer walked because he was 1200' from a school? I mean, he's surely not a felon in possession or, you know, selling an illegal substance...

-Gene

[putput]

Surely there's some case law somewhere that says these zones have to be clearly marked? Wouldn't the cost of that make it prohibitive? I mean, a fire zone has to be marked. A speed zone has to be marked. Private Property No Trespassing and Etc???...

[bwiese]

Surely there's some case law somewhere that says these zones have to be clearly marked? Wouldn't the cost of that make it prohibitive? I mean, a fire zone has to be marked. A speed zone has to be marked. Private Property No Trespassing and Etc???...

Good point, but that's something that'll likely have to come up in court.

[putput]

I would think that Theseus case would be about as good an example as you can find.

[Liberty1]

I could be wrong;), but I think this rather arbitrary change in the law's zone is good/better for our side's argument (wish they'd hurry up and make it 2000' or whatever :chris:).

Bottom line is that it is either constitutional or not to have those zones. 1500' or whatever is a lot harder to defend then 50' or just across the street from school property.

[Librarian]

Surely there's some case law somewhere that says these zones have to be clearly marked? Wouldn't the cost of that make it prohibitive? I mean, a fire zone has to be marked. A speed zone has to be marked. Private Property No Trespassing and Etc???...

Not yet; the PC at 626.9 includes (b) Any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone,
I think what you ask about is the minimum for 'reasonably should know', but I do not believe that has been established. Certainly there is no requirement in the Penal Code or Education Code that the GFSZ zones be marked.

[Theseus]

I find it very interesting that they are adding an exemption for transporting in the school parking lot or driveways.

Are these areas not open to the public? And if these driveways and parking lots are then protected by the law, would it not reason that the very parking lot I was in would be protected as well?

[M198]

I find it very interesting that they are adding an exemption for transporting in the school parking lot or driveways.

Are these areas not open to the public? And if these driveways and parking lots are then protected by the law, would it not reason that the very parking lot I was in would be protected as well?

As i understand it, driveways and parking lots are only exempted in the measuring of the 1500' mark. Meaning that if a school had a long driveway, they couldn't measure from the opening of the driveway.

[pnkssbtz]

As i understand it, driveways and parking lots are only exempted in the measuring of the 1500' mark. Meaning that if a school had a long driveway, they couldn't measure from the opening of the driveway.So where does the 1500' mark actually start? From the edge of the attached track field? From the building's themselves? From the fenced perimeter? Etc. Etc.

[M198]

So where does the 1500' mark actually start? From the edge of the attached track field? From the building's themselves? From the fenced perimeter? Etc. Etc.

It just says school zone, the law defines a school zone as "...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." Good luck with that. Maybe Theseus can tell us where the measurement begins. You can excerise your eye rolling muscles here. (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html)

[bodger]

It just says school zone, the law defines a school zone as "...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." Good luck with that. Maybe Theseus can tell us where the measurement begins. You can excerise your eye rolling muscles here. (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html)

"Grounds" would seem to be an indication that they mean property lines. Like the surveyed boundaries of a land parcel.

[HowardW56]

Yea, why don't they extend the school zones to a mile radius so they overlap the entire state! :mad:

That isn't scheduled until 2011

[the_quark]

The broader they make these, the easier they are to challenge under 5th Amendment grounds. Or, make moot under the idea that in the vast majority of circumstances, a reasonable defendant wouldn't be expected to know he's in a "school zone" just because he was 1/4 mile from the back corner of football field.

[M198]

"Grounds" would seem to be an indication that they mean property lines. Like the surveyed boundaries of a land parcel.

Sounds unconstitutionally vague to me.

[PonchoTA]

Just wrote DeVore. This is what I started with:

Mr. DeVore,

I must comment that I'm extremely disappointed in your Aye vote for AB668. This incredibly stupid bill is not only a waste of our money, but will do nothing to deter the crime this professes to do.

This bill is to extend the school zones out to 1,500 ft. for the purposes of having a firearm on your person. What an incredible waste. First of all, how is this going to be measured? How is it going to be enforced?

This is nothing but "Feel Good" legislation. The law is already stupid enough with the 1,000 ft restriction. Do you realize that is almost a 1/4 of a mile away? It is insane to even have THAT as a restriction. One-HUNDRED feet I could understand to a certain extent, but 1,000? Good grief.

By passing a 1,500 ft restriction, that will cover just about the entire state with the exception of desert, woodland and some of northern California. It would do nothing but make felons out of normally law-abiding citizens.

You want to stop gang-related gun crime?? Start PUNISHING THE CRIMINALS, not those that obey the law anyway. Stop giving them a pass and start actually insisting that they pay consequences for their actions. Just like the stupid ammo bill that DeLeon is trying to push, the only people these bills penalize are those that abide by the laws, the criminals by definition do not.

Please do whatever you can to prevent this bill from passing the Senate. I am not a "single issue voter", but the issues pertaining to my 2nd Amendment rights are very, very high on my list of priorities. Please don't make me regret my decision to support you in your fight with Boxer.

Best regards,

Me
My phone number

What I ended up with because the message field only takes 255 characters: :rolleyes:


Mr. DeVore,
I must comment that I'm extremely disappointed in your Aye vote for AB668. This will not deter the crime this professes to, but make felons out of normally law-abiding citizens. You want to stop gang-related gun crime? PUNISH CRIMINALS.


(I can't believe how little you can say with such a limited field!)
:(

[Liberty1]

(I can't believe how little you can say with such a limited field!)
:(

Snail mail?

[nick]

Just wrote DeVore. This is what I started with:



What I ended up with because the message field only takes 255 characters: :rolleyes:




(I can't believe how little you can say with such a limited field!)
:(

Email him.

[CitaDeL]

This illustrates why I have warned folks that UOC may not get the outcomes we gunowners would like. The 1500' extension is a direct response to UOC in California.

-Gene

Yes, this is the first of the legislators responses to the ugly practice of UOC. There will probably be more. This new addition to the GFSZ helps illustrate the specious and arbitrary reasoning behind an un-Constitutional restriction. If not 1,000 feet, why not 1,500 feet? How about 5,000- for that matter 10,000 feet? This change makes a challenge all the more likely.

As odd as it may sound, I dont believe this has any effect on anyone other than those who carry a handgun exposed in public. Everyone else will continue to carry in fully enclosed, secure locked cases as has been since 626.9 and the Federal GFSZ was enacted.

[Theseus]

As i understand it, driveways and parking lots are only exempted in the measuring of the 1500' mark. Meaning that if a school had a long driveway, they couldn't measure from the opening of the driveway.

I will try and read it more clearly later, but that is not how I understood it.

Oh, and this gem:
This bill would revise this exception to instead except from the prohibition a handgun that is in a locked container inside a motor
vehicle or that is unloaded and inside a locked trunk of a motor vehicle.This language is indicating that to use the exemption here the firearm must at all times be IN A VEHICLE in either the locked case or in a trunk. Currently you can walk down the sidewalk with a fully enclosed locked container with a handgun inside. This would change that.

Although I might be getting ahead of myself, this might, combined with my case law, make 626.9 unconstitutional because it would prohibit people from being able to move their firearms from their dwelling to their vehicles without breaking the law.

For those of us whom live in a school zone and don't have a gated community or garage would not be able to legally move them to and from. We could not buy new firearms and bring them home and we could not take the ones we have at home to the range.

[marshaul]

Although I might be getting ahead of myself, this might, combined with my case law, make 626.9 unconstitutional because it would prohibit people from being able to move their firearms from their dwelling to their vehicles without breaking the law.

For those of us whom live in a school zone and don't have a gated community or garage would not be able to legally move them to and from. We could not buy new firearms and bring them home and we could not take the ones we have at home to the range.

If LOC has to wait until we get proper incorporation and shall-issue, this should be Calgun's next issue to confront.

If the law allows people who live in school zones to own guns, and even purchase new guns, then it must be presumed that can take the gun home, even if they don't happen to have a garage so that they needn't walk from the car to their house, in doing so crossing property "open to the public".

Otherwise, the law has effectively entrapped the citizen: it has explicitly, after an examination of his identity, granted him the right to buy a handgun (knowing full well where he lives, if it be in a school zone), made it clear in a variety of ways that the default place for him to keep that gun is at home, and then it arrests him for taking it home once he gets out of his car because court precedent says the sidewalk that he parks his car on isn't really private property.

In addition, the revision now effectively prohibits folks who live in a school zone but don't own a vehicle or drive from owning a handgun at all, even if they do have a garage. :rolleyes: My roommate would be subject to this very real de facto prohibition.

Neither of these effects are listed as intended; in fact, they seem contrary to the apparent intent which provides for home and business exemptions.

Surely, such arbitrarily unequal result must be legally invalid on its face.

[Liberty1]

We could not buy new firearms and bring them home and we could not take the ones we have at home to the range.

Sure you could. Just call your friendly local 626.9 PC police firearm taxi service, just have your LEGR ready to so it can be handed back to you inside your flat.;)

[Gray Peterson]

If LOC has to wait until we get proper incorporation and shall-issue, this should be Calgun's next issue to confront.

If the law allows people who live in school zones to own guns, and even purchase new guns, then it must be presumed that can take the gun home, even if they don't happen to have a garage so that they needn't walk from the car to their house, in doing so crossing property "open to the public".

Otherwise, the law has effectively entrapped the citizen: it has explicitly, after an examination of his identity, granted him the right to buy a handgun (knowing full well where he lives, if it be in a school zone), made it clear in a variety of ways that the default place for him to keep that gun is at home, and then it arrests him for taking it home once he gets out of his car because court precedent says the sidewalk that he parks his car on isn't really private property.

In addition, the revision now effectively prohibits folks who live in a school zone but don't own a vehicle or drive from owning a handgun at all, even if they do have a garage. :rolleyes: My roommate would be subject to this very real de facto prohibition.

Neither of these effects are listed as intended; in fact, they seem contrary to the apparent intent which provides for home and business exemptions.

Surely, such arbitrarily unequal result must be legally invalid on its face.

Well, at least now you have de-facto good cause if you happen to live within the 1500 feet.

[cdtx2001]

Although I might be getting ahead of myself, this might, combined with my case law, make 626.9 unconstitutional because it would prohibit people from being able to move their firearms from their dwelling to their vehicles without breaking the law.

For those of us whom live in a school zone and don't have a gated community or garage would not be able to legally move them to and from. We could not buy new firearms and bring them home and we could not take the ones we have at home to the range.

Again, making criminals out of normally law abiding citizens over night.

As it has been said before, this will not deter or prevent crime.

I live less than 1500' from a SZ, and also in a court. I HAVE to drive through said SZ, and live in it. How am I supposed to get my firearms from my house to my vehicle???

[GuyW]

Well, at least now you have de-facto good cause if you happen to live within the 1500 feet.

Yes.

Also good fodder for the Sykes case: even the anti's admit we have a RKBA within the home....so, how to get the guns TO the home under this stupidity, without a CCW?

The Penal Code explicitly says we can own & possess firearms in homes and businesses WITHOUT a permit - how to get them there if such are within the school zone, without a CCW?

Actually, I think this is one of the best pro-gun proposals from the brain-deads in Sacto...


.

[curtisfong]

The Penal Code explicitly says we can own & possess firearms in homes and businesses WITHOUT a permit - how to get them there if such are within the school zone, without a CCW?


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sounds like a start for a very actionable good cause to me. If TBJ had any balls, he would agree it is good cause.

[Liberty1]

If this passes I think it will strengthen our position. But GFSZs will fall regardless IMO eventually so why suffer in the meantime if we can defeat this expansion.

[bwiese]

Does anyone know what the current status of AB 668 is? The legislature web site is pretty opaque - it has been amended, it seems to be still active, but I don't see any activity on it.

I believe it's likely dormant given CA NRA's focus/exhortations on beating AB962.

[obeygiant]

Here's the last bit that was published on it.


CURRENT BILL STATUS (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090618_status.html)


MEASURE : A.B. No. 668
AUTHOR(S) : Lieu.
TOPIC : Firearms: gun-free school zones.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/01/2009


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/18/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN PUBLIC SAFETY

TITLE : An act to amend Section 626.9 of the Penal Code,
relating to firearms.

[hoffmang]

Does anyone know what the current status of AB 668 is? The legislature web site is pretty opaque - it has been amended, it seems to be still active, but I don't see any activity on it.

It's a two year bill and my understanding is that it's been table until next session but would likely then move forward.

NRA & CRPA have recently been made aware of the locked container issue.

-Gene

[coolusername2007]

It's a two year bill and my understanding is that it's been table until next session but would likely then move forward.

NRA & CRPA have recently been made aware of the locked container issue.

-Gene

Just talked to my local Assembly Members office and they said this bill is dead for at least this calendar year.

[hoffmang]

Just talked to my local Assembly Members office and they said this bill is dead for at least this calendar year.

It's been expected that it would be calendared early next session.

-Gene