PDA

View Full Version : School Zones (NOT gun-free zones) Already Expanded to 1500 feet!


N6ATF
07-20-2009, 2:46 PM
To all those who say the UOC movement has led to the Criminal Safety School Zones being expanded to 1500 feet:

Check out SB 1666 (Calderon) (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1651-1700/sb_1666_bill_20080812_enrolled.html).

It was:
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 25, 2008
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 7, 2008
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 11, 2008

Signed by the Governor (http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/10701/) shortly thereafter.

I found SB 1666 when reading the bill analysis of AB 668 (http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_cfa_20090420_114150_asm_comm.html):

"In 2008, Senate Bill 1666 (Ron Calderon - Chapter 726, Statute
of 2008) expanded the areas designated by California's Safe
School Zone law from 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet around schools.
This bill provided a safer environment for California's
children by creating a larger safe zone to keep out those who
would disturb school activity and drug offenders.

"However, SB 1666 did not increase the area in which enhanced
penalties apply for illegal gun possession around public or
private schools. Thus, there is a disparity in the areas
protected by California's Safe School Zone law and
California's Gun-Free School Zone Act. Safe School Zone
extends out to an area 1,500 feet from a public or private
school, while the Gun-Free School Zone only protects an area
1,000 feet from a public or private school.

"As a result of this disparity of the areas protected by the
different zones, if criminal possession or use of a gun
outside a Gun-Free School Zone but within a Safe School Zone,
the criminal penalties established by the Gun-Free School Zone
Act would not be applicable. AB 668 seeks to address this
discrepancy by making the zones the same footage and by
sending a strong message to our neighborhoods that unlawful
possession of a firearm will not be tolerated, especially when
it occurs in close proximity to children."


SB 1666 mistakenly failed to include the word gun, but was passed and signed into law anyway.

AB 668 seeks to correct this mistake, as it is obvious the legislature's intent all along was to have 1,500 feet for criminal safety/victim disarmament.

...

So, guess what? The date code on the first El Indio UOC brunch pics is July 20, 2008. That means that unless the legislature had time machines to tell what would happen MONTHS AFTER the first proposal of the extension from 1000 to 1500 feet, UOC is NOT to blame!

Open carry was going on well before we started organized group events, though.

In such an undeniably large and public number in UOC-only areas where they would be noticed, repeatedly mentioned in town council meeting minutes (I think you've gotten that email too), and for a huge number of MWG call stats to be escalated from dispatch to CLEOs to legislature?

That beggars belief.

Especially for the people who want to blame Nate personally, one person, from Jan' 2008 to March 2008 gets a bill introduced specifically because of him? Puh-leeze.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:48 PM
Open carry was going on well before we started organized group events, though.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 2:52 PM
Open carry was going on well before we started organized group events, though.

Not as much as it is now. The first big OC meet that I know of wasn't until August of '08 at El Indio, and that is for all of California. I started blogging in Jan of '08. There is no friggin way that this was initiated by UOC.

Merc1138
07-20-2009, 2:53 PM
1500 feet? Just make it a mile because it won't matter anymore. At least they were dodgeable before, but that makes probably 4 overlap my house now.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 2:54 PM
Not as much as it is now. The first big OC meet that I know of wasn't until August of '08 at El Indio, and that is for all of California. I started blogging in Jan of '08. There is no friggin way that this was initiated by UOC.

Big question for you: When did they add the part where they're deleting the "locked container" exemption?

It may or may not have started off as a UOC thing, but I strongly suspect the current steering force behind it is UOC related.

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 2:58 PM
The school zone was not already expanded, it was an attempt to expand it that did not pass.

Currently the School Zone is still 1,000 feet.

However, it does prove that UOC is NOT the cause of the increase.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 3:01 PM
The school zone was not already expanded, it was an attempt to expand it that did not pass.

Looks to me like "the school zone" is two different things. One of them is the "gun safe zone" (1000'), the other is the "school zone" (1500' already)

However, it does prove that UOC is NOT the cause of the increase.

No, what it proves is that UOC was not the initial stated purpose. It doesn't prove that UOC isn't what's taken over steering it.

Answer me this: if UOC has nothing to do with this, then why are they trying to delete locking container exemptions? Why isn't it just an attempt to expand to 1500'? I think it has to do with "steering" after certain folks readour discussion of LUCC on Calguns, personally.

tiki
07-20-2009, 3:03 PM
What about the locked container exemption? What exactly is that?

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 3:04 PM
Looks to me like "the school zone" is two different things. One of them is the "gun safe zone" (1000'), the other is the "school zone" (1500' already)



No, what it proves is that UOC was not the initial stated purpose. It doesn't prove that UOC isn't what's taken over steering it.

Answer me this: if UOC has nothing to do with this, then why are they trying to delete locking container exemptions? Why isn't it just an attempt to expand to 1500'? I think it has to do with "steering" after certain folks readour discussion of LUCC on Calguns, personally.

The fact remains that UOC didn't start it. They may have added other crap to try and screw gun owners after reading LUCC stuff but in the end....

HondaMasterTech
07-20-2009, 3:09 PM
As far as safe zone... Everyone knows the best drugs are available at school.

demnogis
07-20-2009, 3:09 PM
Sadly, the intent stated in the bill is to curb unlawful possession of firearms and drug activity.

Very cloak-and-dagger, as it seeks to make possession of firearms unlawful. Not unlawful possession of firearms more unlawful.

If 626.9 can't be struck down, at the very minimum it should be fought against to provide exemptions for lawful possession. IE: Not a felon or otherwise disqualified individual. Make an unconstitutional law constitutional. But I fear first and foremost, they would have to prove a reduction of crime in that magical 1000'-1500' radius around schools. I believe we would see quite the contrary.

And yes, this just further shows the .gov has been seeking to expand school zones for quite some time. How many of you knew that many misdemeanors can be enhanced to felonies or carry enhanced sentences for being within a school zone. This works as a catch-all attempt at income increase for things like criminal convictions (drug sales/use), traffic violations, DUI/DWIs, etc.

Ever received a speeding ticket in a construction zone? What about a construction zone in a school zone? I haven't, but I guess if someone did they wouldn't see their license again in many moons.

What about infraction-level possession of marijuana? Instant-misdemeanor (or felony) if in that magical 1000' (1500' Safe School Zone) area.

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 3:09 PM
Big question for you: When did they add the part where they're deleting the "locked container" exemption?

It may or may not have started off as a UOC thing, but I strongly suspect the current steering force behind it is UOC related.

I think this is the "exemption change" that everyone is talking about. It allows you to carry a handgun in a locked container inside a motor vehicle.

So, for those who do not own a motor vehicle, and who live inside the 1,500 foot School Zone, this would amount to a prohibition on owning a handgun, as it would be impossible to legally transport the handgun in a locked container from the gun shop to your home, on your bicycle or any other means of transportation other than a motor vehicle. It would be illegal to carry your handgun in a locked container and ride your bicycle down to the range in order to target shoot. It would be illegal to take your handgun to the post office to mail it to the manufacturer for repair, because you don't own a motor vehicle.


AB 668, as amended, Lieu. Firearms: gun-free school zones.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that it is an offense for any person to possess a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority. Existing law defines "school zone" for these purposes 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. Existing law provides an exception to the prohibition for handguns that are in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
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. The bill would extend that distance increase the size of the zone to include the area up to 1,500 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. The bill would create an exception to the school zone firearms possession prohibition for firearms that are otherwise lawfully possessed or transported in a vehicle on a driveway or parking lot of a school, as specified.
By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

ke6guj
07-20-2009, 3:10 PM
you assume that they wanted/meant/forgot to increae the gun free zone in 2008 when they increased the Safe School Zone to 1500'. Perhaps they didn't want to, or some gunnie-friendly legislators had it removed. Now, they are attempting to increase the gun free zone to 1500', but you don't know if they were planning on before UOC happened, or it UOC gave them reason to "address that discrepency".

Irrational Voice
07-20-2009, 3:11 PM
for those of us a little slow on the uptake where are the CCW exemptions in 626.9 and in AB 668?

never mind, found it. It's in paragraph l which is actually not labeled in the copy I found on the web.

bodger
07-20-2009, 3:12 PM
The fact remains that UOC didn't start it. They may have added other crap to try and screw gun owners after reading LUCC stuff but in the end....



Hey, sounds like something you could say in the interview tomorrow. I hope you keep any gloating in check on that show, that could turn right round on you.

So what it is folks??? 1000' or 1500', and if I drive by a school with my Glock unloaded, in a locked case on my car seat, with a loaded mag in the case with it, am I going to be Bubba-Je Jaclson's new prison biatch?

UOC my azz, lately I'm afraid to go outside of my house with a gun in ANY condition, unloaded, locked, out of site but not illegally concealed, whatever.

Seriously, the laws in this state have started to make me feel like I am a criminal because I own guns. Period. And the laws are designed to be so complicated that it is a sefl-fulfilling prophecy I am.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 3:12 PM
The fact remains that UOC didn't start it. They may have added other crap to try and screw gun owners after reading LUCC stuff but in the end....



I would suggest reading about the history behind Prop H (SF's handgun ban).

That bill was originally scheduled to die in committee before some pro-gun groups started railing about it and raised it on the radar. At that point, the city had to push it harder or be seen as loose on guns, and it became a whole big mess.

There's no guarantee that the 1500' bill was going to go anywhere earlier on - I don't know the status of the politics, but it may or may not have been going.

The addition of the later language however, tells me that UOC is feeding it now - whether or not it was a concern at the start.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 3:15 PM
So what it is folks??? 1000' or 1500', and if I drive by a school with my Glock unloaded, in a locked case on my car seat, with a loaded mag in the case with it, am I going to be Bubba-Je Jaclson's new prison biatch?

You would be fine as the law stands presently.

Provided that you don't live inside of a school zone, you would also be fine under the new law. The only exemption that's surviving in the NEW form of the law, is for unloaded firearms in a locked case within a motor vehicle.

If you live within a school zone, once this passes you'd better hope you have a garage to load your guns into your car in.

pullnshoot25
07-20-2009, 3:19 PM
I would suggest reading about the history behind Prop H (SF's handgun ban).

That bill was originally scheduled to die in committee before some pro-gun groups started railing about it and raised it on the radar. At that point, the city had to push it harder or be seen as loose on guns, and it became a whole big mess.

There's no guarantee that the 1500' bill was going to go anywhere earlier on - I don't know the status of the politics, but it may or may not have been going.

The addition of the later language however, tells me that UOC is feeding it now - whether or not it was a concern at the start.

Come on though gramm, just say it... UOC didn't start the fire! At this moment, I only care about the origins.

bodger
07-20-2009, 3:21 PM
You would be fine as the law stands presently.

Provided that you don't live inside of a school zone, you would also be fine under the new law. The only exemption that's surviving in the NEW form of the law, is for unloaded firearms in a locked case within a motor vehicle.

If you live within a school zone, once this passes you'd better hope you have a garage to load your guns into your car in.

Therein lies the rub for me.
I DO live within 1500 feet of a school. And I don't have a garage. I live in a house with a driveway next to it where I park. I have to go down my front steps, walk 15 feet or so on a public sidewalk, and then I am back on private property and that is where I would then place the locked container with the gun into my car. There is no other access to my driveway from my house without traversing public property outside.
So, essentially, I cannot leave my house with a gun, or bring one into my house, without committing a crime that would result in the possibility that I would lose my right to own firearms.
Can I be part of the class action suit if there is one, please?

EDIT TO ADD: Do licensed day care centers count as schools in this mess?

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 3:25 PM
Come on though gramm, just say it... UOC didn't start the fire! At this moment, I only care about the origins.

Can't say it because I don't really know for sure about UOC in totality. It isn't JUST our events.

However, the EVENTS certainly didn't START it. That's as much as I could really say for certain.

I maintain however that they're still driving this after UOC. I kind of doubt that if UOC had basically just been events, that we would've had the locking container thing added though.

I would REALLY love to know when they started trying to delete exemptions though - was it after some of the LUCC threads? I distinctly recall participating pretty heavily in those...

Decoligny
07-20-2009, 3:28 PM
THIS THREAD TITLE IS LEADING PEOPLE TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION.

The Gun Free School Zone is currently 1,000 feet, not 1,500 feet.

AB 668 is currently in committee, not passed as law.

The OP found a previous attempt to increase the Gun Free School zone to 1,500 feet, it failed.

OP Title should read "School Zones Expansion to 1500 feet attempted Pre-UOC!

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 3:28 PM
Seriously, the laws in this state have started to make me feel like I am a criminal because I own guns. Period. And the laws are designed to be so complicated that it is a sefl-fulfilling prophecy I am.

The legislature, public safety committees in particular, have shown time and time again that their general intent is to screw law-abiding gun owners and unarmed victims in favor of criminals.

They don't need any reason, provocation, precipitate event, nothing, to pass laws against us. If you take it upon yourself to only represent the safety of criminals, sometimes you will brain fart and not be able to perfectly write and amend criminal safety laws.

I don't expect everyone to be perfect all the time, even if it's perfect evil they practice.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 3:29 PM
Therein lies the rub for me.
I DO live within 1500 feet of a school. And I don't have a garage. I live in a house with a driveway next to it where I park. I have to go down my front steps, walk 15 feet or so on a public sidewalk, and then I am back on private property and that is where I would then place the locked container with the gun into my car. There is no other access to my driveway from my house without traversing public property outside.
So, essentially, I cannot leave my house with a gun, or bring one into my house, without committing a crime that would result in the possibility that I would lose my right to own firearms.
Can I be part of the class action suit if there is one, please?

After this law - yes, you my friend are screwed as this is currently worded. Just like me, unless I clear out the garage of the new place I'm buying to use it for a loading zone. Actually, come to think of it everyone in my trailer park I'm in right now is also screwed; there's a school across the freeway (yeah, worrying about THAT is logical for the children!) within 1500' of the trailer park entirely.

As for a class action suit... if you're a straight white male like me, chances are you won't be useful in it whatsoever. I will never be useful in any class-action suits except as a donor to the fund.

EDIT TO ADD: Do licensed day care centers count as schools in this mess?

Nope. Not unless for some reason they are also accreditted as K-12 schools, which would be unlikely.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 3:31 PM
THIS THREAD TITLE IS LEADING PEOPLE TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION.

To keep the edit minimal, I have simply added "NOT gun free zones" to the title.

ke6guj
07-20-2009, 3:33 PM
THIS THREAD TITLE IS LEADING PEOPLE TO THE WRONG CONCLUSION.

The Gun Free School Zone is currently 1,000 feet, not 1,500 feet.

AB 668 is currently in committee, not passed as law.

The OP found a previous attempt to increase the Gun Free School zone to 1,500 feet, it failed.

OP Title should read "School Zones Expansion to 1500 feet attempted Pre-UOC!nothing in the OP shows that they attempted to increase the gun free zone to 1500 before UOC. It shows that the current bill that would increase the gun free zone mentions that a bill passed last year to increase the Safe School zone to 1500' did not include increasing the gun free zone to 1500' and that there was a descrepency in the two zones.

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 3:33 PM
The Gun Free School Zone is currently 1,000 feet, not 1,500 feet.

The OP found a previous attempt to increase the Gun Free 'safe school zone' to 1,500 feet, it failed passed with the governor's signature as SB 1666, but mistakenly failed to include the word gun.

AB 668 seeks to correct this mistake, as it is obvious the legislature's intent all along was to have 1,500 feet for criminal safety/victim disarmament.

Fixed.

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 3:39 PM
AB 668, as amended, Lieu. Firearms: gun-free school zones.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that it is an offense for any person to possess a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority. Existing law defines "school zone" for these purposes 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. Existing law provides an exception to the prohibition for handguns that are in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
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. The bill would extend that distance increase the size of the zone to include the area up to 1,500 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. The bill would create an exception to the school zone firearms possession prohibition for firearms that are otherwise lawfully possessed or transported in a vehicle on a driveway or parking lot of a school, as specified.
By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

That's pretty crazy. I thought AB962 was bad, this is worse. So essentially you can't take your firearm anywhere because the moment you step into an unfenced section of the house in order to put the firearm into the trunk, you're comitting a crime (if there happens to be a school nearby).

You can't even buy one, without a gerage. Or if your gerage is built seperate from the main house.

Who care about ammo if you can't even buy a gun without becoming a criminal.

bodger
07-20-2009, 3:40 PM
The legislature, public safety committees in particular, have shown time and time again that their general intent is to screw law-abiding gun owners and unarmed victims in favor of criminals.

They don't need any reason, provocation, precipitate event, nothing, to pass laws against us. If you take it upon yourself to only represent the safety of criminals, sometimes you will brain fart not be able to perfectly write and amend criminal safety laws.

I don't expect everyone to be perfect all the time, even if it's perfect evil they practice.

The general intent you describe is exactly what gets my azz red. That's exactly what they are doing, and in the process, making it impossible for me to defend myself unless I also become a criminal.

Sorry for the rant, but damn, this is about as close as they can get to just storming through my front door and taking my guns for the good of liberal humanity as defined by somebody who has probably never held a gun in their lives. I hate to tell them but the fact that so many have is why they have any rights at all to begin with.

Okay, so for now, I get it, 1000'.

cortayack
07-20-2009, 3:51 PM
So are they going to post signs all over the place so I know when I go into a gun free zone..........LOL!

POLICESTATE
07-20-2009, 3:55 PM
Trailer Park references, question: If it's a private community then it's private property and not public therefore within 1000 feet of school should be okay? Big gray area to me. I live in a trailer park myself and it's a privately owned community with signs posted etc so although I have no reason to carry open loaded I should be legal if I chose to do so?

Thoughts on these type of issues with regards to school zones? Also apartment complexes, not considered public property in this respect? They are in fact private property but some of this public vs private stuff in laws relating to firearms is really hazy it seems.

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 4:00 PM
Trailer Park references, question: If it's a private community then it's private property and not public therefore within 1000 feet of school should be okay? Big gray area to me. I live in a trailer park myself and it's a privately owned community with signs posted etc so although I have no reason to carry open loaded I should be legal if I chose to do so?

Thoughts on these type of issues with regards to school zones? Also apartment complexes, not considered public property in this respect? They are in fact private property but some of this public vs private stuff in laws relating to firearms is really hazy it seems.

You think so? I thought Theseus got into trouble because he was open carrying in his front yard (not the streets or sidewalk). The judge argument was the place is easily accessible, so for this case, it's to be treated as public property.

lorax3
07-20-2009, 4:00 PM
They are in fact private property but some of this public vs private stuff in laws relating to firearms is really hazy it seems.

Refer to Theseus & LA UOC charges (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=142379) in which 'private property' that was open to the public is not truly private.

Unless said trailer park is enclosed by a gate that denies entrance to the public; then using the above logic it would probably be deemed not to be exempt under 'private property'.

Similar situations include a non-fenced front lawn, etc. Read the above linked thread for subtleties.

POLICESTATE
07-20-2009, 4:03 PM
Interesting, a very lousy interpretation of the law, too bad we can't say to our county tax assessors that since the front 20% of my so-called property is accessible to the public then I'm only paying you 80% of the money you want.

Of course I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised since there is almost no real private ownership of anything anymore these days.

Thanks for your comments, I figured it might be something like that.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 4:04 PM
Trailer Park references, question: If it's a private community then it's private property and not public therefore within 1000 feet of school should be okay? Big gray area to me. I live in a trailer park myself and it's a privately owned community with signs posted etc so although I have no reason to carry open loaded I should be legal if I chose to do so?

Thoughts on these type of issues with regards to school zones? Also apartment complexes, not considered public property in this respect? They are in fact private property but some of this public vs private stuff in laws relating to firearms is really hazy it seems.

As Lorax says... open to the public. I figure school zone probably still applies here.

Main thing to consider is that you don't have the right to concealed carry in the shared area of an apartment complex - and concealed carry is valid on private property. So, I suspect that the shared area of trailer parks are similar with regards to no school zone protection.

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 4:10 PM
As Lorax says... open to the public. I figure school zone probably still applies here.

Main thing to consider is that you don't have the right to concealed carry in the shared area of an apartment complex - and concealed carry is valid on private property. So, I suspect that the shared area of trailer parks are similar with regards to no school zone protection.

I feel sorry for ppl who live in an apartment near a school. How do they get the firearm from unit door to their car trunk?

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 4:11 PM
I feel sorry for ppl who live in an apartment near a school. How do they get the firearm from unit door to their car trunk?

At present, all they have to do is use a locking container.

After this bill is passed, they will have no legal way to do so.

Actually, if one wanted to get really goofy... they could always drive a motorcycle into the complex (assuming ground floor) and then into the apartment, load in a side saddle or whatever, and drive off.

POLICESTATE
07-20-2009, 4:18 PM
Wow, just wow. It's the lack of respect of law and property in this state by the people running it that sometimes makes me feel hopeless about this state's future. But then with the lack of respect of law and property at the federal level I figure first Kalifornia, zen ze vest of ze homeland!

bodger
07-20-2009, 4:19 PM
At present, all they have to do is use a locking container.

After this bill is passed, they will have no legal way to do so.

Actually, if one wanted to get really goofy... they could always drive a motorcycle into the complex (assuming ground floor) and then into the apartment, load in a side saddle or whatever, and drive off.

Goofy indeed. If that's what's necessary to be in compliance with a law, it says a lot about the law itself.

So, could this be a good thing for gun owner's rights? The fact that there is no way to lawfully transport a firearm if you live within one of these zones?
What does it take, a bust and an appeal and all that?

How high does the fence have to be make a front yard considered not accessible to the public and indeed private property?

N6ATF
07-20-2009, 4:27 PM
How high does the fence have to be make a front yard considered not accessible to the public and indeed private property?

Continuous and locked... lock would be within arm's reach, so probably about there at a minimum.

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 4:33 PM
At present, all they have to do is use a locking container.

After this bill is passed, they will have no legal way to do so.

Actually, if one wanted to get really goofy... they could always drive a motorcycle into the complex (assuming ground floor) and then into the apartment, load in a side saddle or whatever, and drive off.

Humm how about one of those motorized old folks scooters? Load into one, drive down to the gerage, fold it down and put the scooter and the firearm into the trunk. That'll work too. Now you just need a scooter and a big enough trunk.

Regardless it's just madness.

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 4:36 PM
Humm how about one of those motorized old folks scooters? Load into one, drive down to the gerage, fold it down and put the scooter and the firearm into the trunk. That'll work too. Now you just need a scooter and a big enough trunk.

Regardless it's just madness.

An old folks' scooter would not be a motor vehicle, as licensed by DMV. A golf cart wouldn't work either.

However, this may actually qualify:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-03/darpas-amazing-robot-pack-mule-keeps-its-balance-ice

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 4:40 PM
An old folks' scooter would not be a motor vehicle, as licensed by DMV. A golf cart wouldn't work either.

However, this may actually qualify:

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-03/darpas-amazing-robot-pack-mule-keeps-its-balance-ice

Do you think Smart For Two would fit into the elevator? :p

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 4:47 PM
Do you think Smart For Two would fit into the elevator? :p

Doubtful. Also, I don't recall that many apartment complexes having elevators. Are they required to? I don't recall seeing one at my friend's complex, and it's not a very old one.

demnogis
07-20-2009, 4:50 PM
Maybe what this bill (should it become law) needs is a class action lawsuit and injunction against 626.9. Every person that lives within a school zone and owns firearms would be able to reap the benefits. Even with a pool of possibly 2-3,000 and a small contribution would get a lawyer's wheels grinding. Or, if CalGuns took the action I have a feeling there would be immensely more contributors and donations for the cause.

bulgron
07-20-2009, 4:52 PM
The worse they make it, the easier it is to strike down in Federal court.

st.clouds
07-20-2009, 4:55 PM
Doubtful. Also, I don't recall that many apartment complexes having elevators. Are they required to? I don't recall seeing one at my friend's complex, and it's not a very old one.

It's a joke. I was making fun of the whole anti gun lunacy and the green movement hippies <_< but that's besides the point. The law is just utterly, totally stupid I'm at a loss for words.

Btw how many locked safe, container carrier had ever fired unlawfully, caused an accident, comitted a felony or killed a cat? I'm guessing 0 or about. So what's this law trying to address again? How would infringing on our rights make going to school "safer" for children? If anythying I'd imagine going to school just become a tad more more dangerous.

GuyW
07-20-2009, 4:58 PM
At present, all they have to do is use a locking container.
After this bill is passed, they will have no legal way to do so.


Injunction to set aside the law - impossible to legally change living locations if handguns can't be moved....

grammaton76
07-20-2009, 5:01 PM
Injunction to set aside the law - impossible to legally change living locations if handguns can't be moved....

Correct. Most likely though, what'll happen is that the locked container exemption gets reinstated (possibly as a result of them reading this forum prior to submitting the law for signature, actually), but only applicable if you're going directly to or from your motor vehicle.

stuckinhippytown
07-20-2009, 5:33 PM
Fortunately for us, LEOs still need to get a search warrant in order to get in to a locked container whether it is a backpack, suitcase, a nylon laptop case with a lock on it. If they force their way and defeat the lock, anything they find falls under the fruit from a poisonous tree doctrine. Just a hunch that your packin heat in a kiddie zone doesnot meet that burden. If they happen to lose their marbles and open it anyway, I cant see a DA being dumb enough to prosecute. BTW if an Officer ever asks if a backpack or container is yours( And you have contraband in it) CLAIM IT!!!! If you dont regardless of probable cause, they can enter the backpack to establish ownership. just fair warning friend of mine was stupid enough not to and alot of bail later he is finally home

bodger
07-20-2009, 5:37 PM
Well, if they need a warrant to get into a backpack that's locked, then I guess that helps some.

Does the average cop walking around actually know all of the small nuances of these bills once they become law? Or do they even care.

I wouldn't UOC in this state no matter what. it seems like a bust waiting to happen. And a bad one too if you get into this school zone nonsense.

lorax3
07-20-2009, 5:57 PM
Although it is interesting to see that the original bill (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090225_introduced.html)(2/25/09) included the ability to carry in a locked container OR in a locked trunk of a motor vehicle. The 4/13/09 amended version (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090413_amended_asm_v98.html) reads as: (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.

Further amendments were made in June. Complete info here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_668&sess=0910&house=B&author=lieu).

SDJim
07-20-2009, 7:55 PM
Wow, by rough measurements on Google Earth I'm screwed 3 different ways.
Time to start another round of calling based on that reason.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 8:29 PM
After seeing the heading on the thread I think I may have to have a good cry.

Theseus
07-21-2009, 8:20 PM
Look further folks, this isn't just for handguns, but rifles as well.

I for one hope this passes. I am not admitting anything right now, but I would be happy to break that law every day.

lorax3
07-21-2009, 8:25 PM
Look further folks, this isn't just for handguns, but rifles as well.


Do you have a more recently amended version of this bill? As of now the current version (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090601_amended_asm_v97.html)retains the original clause that excludes non-concealable weapons.

This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
accordance with state law , including the otherwise lawful
possession or lawful transportation of a firearm, other than a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person, located within a vehicle while the vehicle is
on the driveway or the parking lot of a school .

KylaGWolf
07-21-2009, 9:59 PM
Do you have a more recently amended version of this bill? As of now the current version (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090601_amended_asm_v97.html)retains the original clause that excludes non-concealable weapons.

There is an update on the state website that shows the locked container clause stricken from the text.

lorax3
07-21-2009, 10:17 PM
There is an update on the state website that shows the locked container clause stricken from the text.

Yes I see that change. I was referring to the claim Theseus made in which this new bill will also apply to long arms as well as handguns. The current law and all current updates of the 1500 expansion bill still only deal with handguns. Long arms (rifles and shotguns) still seem to remain exempted.

KylaGWolf
07-21-2009, 10:28 PM
Yes I see that change. I was referring to the claim Theseus made in which this new bill will also apply to long arms as well as handguns. The current law and all current updates of the 1500 expansion law still only deal with handguns. Long arms (rifles and shotguns) still seem to remain exempted.

No worries I think my brain is fried looking at statistics and PC. Yeah I know law geek that I am.

Theseus
07-21-2009, 10:46 PM
Do you have a more recently amended version of this bill? As of now the current version (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0651-0700/ab_668_bill_20090601_amended_asm_v97.html)retains the original clause that excludes non-concealable weapons.

(2) When a lawfully possessed pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed on the person is unloaded and is in a
locked container inside a motor vehicle or unloaded and inside a
locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in
accordance with state law , including the otherwise lawful
possession or lawful transportation of a firearm, other than a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon
the person, located within a vehicle while the vehicle is
on the driveway or the parking lot of a school .

For some reason I read it now and it means different. This actually seems to be saying now that you can have the rifle or "unconcealable" firearm in your vehicle INCLUDING in the parking lot or driveway of the school, i.e. when you are dropping your daughter off at school. . .

When I read it last it seemed to say that it too had to be in a vehicle, but I am not getting that reading. My mistake.

So, again I ask, what makes my XD .40 more dangerous than the 45-70 lever action or AR-15 in my truck?

Scratch705
07-21-2009, 11:21 PM
b/c u can stuff it down your pants and walk around with it concealed.

at least that is the theory.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 12:27 AM
b/c u can stuff it down your pants and walk around with it concealed.

at least that is the theory.

Well, while it is in my pants it is no more dangerous than a rifle on my shoulder. Arguably, when I shoot, my XD .40 it is less dangerous than my AR-15 or a 45-70. Trust me.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:45 AM
I always keep my deadliest weapon concealed in my pants.

...what're you looking at me funny for? I eat a LOT of beans.

N6ATF
07-22-2009, 1:25 AM
For some reason I read it now and it means different. This actually seems to be saying now that you can have the rifle or "unconcealable" firearm in your vehicle INCLUDING in the parking lot or driveway of the school, i.e. when you are dropping your daughter off at school. . .

When I read it last it seemed to say that it too had to be in a vehicle, but I am not getting that reading. My mistake.

So, again I ask, what makes my XD .40 more dangerous than the 45-70 lever action or AR-15 in my truck?

It's more dangerous to criminals because it should be far easier to effectively maneuver a pistol in a vehicle-bound deadly force encounter than a long arm. Unless you're in an armored car with gun ports.

Traitorous government officials endangering criminals? Perish the thought.

wildhawker
07-22-2009, 1:29 AM
I always keep my deadliest weapon concealed in my pants.

...what're you looking at me funny for? I eat a LOT of beans.

Thank God for locked container carry. :eek:

artherd
07-22-2009, 2:47 AM
WE DIDN'T START THE FIRE! EAT THAT!

The firetrucks are coming, and they don't care...

http://www.air-and-space.com/20040924%20SBA/DSC_4030%20Santa%20Barbara%20Airport%20fire%20truc k%20F81%20l.jpg

johnny_22
07-22-2009, 7:56 AM
This bill pass the Assembly with NO "NO" votes!

AB 668 LIEU Assembly Third Reading
(AYES 76. NOES 0.) (PASS)

Well, if I can't take my guns out of my house, my shooting skill is going to get worse.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 8:16 AM
Yeah unfortunately you are probably right. :(

GuyW
07-22-2009, 12:12 PM
The Penal Code still says that you can conceal an UNLOADED handgun when coming to or from a recognized target range, or hunting or fishing expeditions...
.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:46 PM
The Penal Code still says that you can conceal an UNLOADED handgun when coming to or from a recognized target range, or hunting or fishing expeditions...
.

This is sort of a mishmash of handgun transport, specific destination requirements, etc. Overall it's an exemption from concealed carry statute provided that it's locked.

The problem is that 626.9 is a separate section of PC and exemptions to one offense do not automatically apply to OTHER offenses.

Can't get popped for 12025(?), can still get popped for 626.9 unless otherwise exempted...

GuyW
07-22-2009, 1:41 PM
This is sort of a mishmash of handgun transport, specific destination requirements, etc. Overall it's an exemption from concealed carry statute provided that it's locked.


No - locked is only required in 12026.2.

PC 12027 has no such limitation on the exemption.


The problem is that 626.9 is a separate section of PC and exemptions to one offense do not automatically apply to OTHER offenses.

Can't get popped for 12025(?), can still get popped for 626.9 unless otherwise exempted...

But, 12027 at LEAST IMHO gives on an argument for their purported violation of a rediculous proposed law that prevents one from moving a gun outside their house.

And - concealed is concealed - how to get popped??
.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 1:46 PM
But, 12027 at LEAST IMHO gives on an argument for their purported violation of a rediculous proposed law that prevents one from moving a gun outside their house.

I'm pretty confident that any lawyer on this site will say this doesn't constitute anything but the flimsiest of "defense arguments". I'm pretty sure that you're better off arguing 2A infringement than this, even with the 2A argument being less than completely solid for the time being.

And - concealed is concealed - how to get popped??

When going to the shooting range, how "concealed" do you think the gun case is? You're not tucking 2-3 handguns and 4 rifles under your coat and whistling softly, walking out the door. It's apparent what you're doing when you load up your car to go to the range.

Before you start the "If they don't know..." argument, bear in mind what happens if you have a neighbor who doesn't like you very much that happens to know about the school zone. It's pretty obvious what you're doing, and if his LEO buddy happens to be visiting at the time... the risk is non zero.

GoodEyeSniper
07-22-2009, 1:51 PM
well, when I go to the range it's not very conspicuous, everything I need fits inside a regular Duffel bag.

But I don't currently have any long guns, so there's that :P