PDA

View Full Version : Please hold off on open carry events until August 31st


grammaton76
07-22-2009, 11:50 AM
There are plenty of people talking about holding UOC events right now, throughout the state. While this is admirable enthusiasm and the arguments can go both ways on whether or not it's the right thing, I want to bring one thing to everyone's attention.

AB668 is presently proposed and there is an excellent chance that it will pass. Among other things, AB668 will expand school zones from 1000' to 1500'. This will make MAJOR changes to open carry safe zones and such if it passes.

If AB668 passes, ALL the public education you may provide during a UOC event will have a "shelf life". If people are educated thoroughly on the 1000' range and do their research meticulously, it is almost guaranteed that many will NOT hear about the new 1500' range around school zones.

There are MANY gun owners who were not reached about the much-publicised California Assault Weapons Ban and ended up with unregistered AW's. AB668 is not going to enjoy nearly the publicity of the AWB, and would pass quietly.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 11:56 AM
Let it pass. Plan your events. This change is a good thing as it makes the law even more ridiculous and attackable as an unconstitutional law.

pullnshoot25
07-22-2009, 12:04 PM
As much as I like to throw these events and get people together for OCing, I feel that standing down until at least after August 31st (when our "representatives" end their legislative sessions) is a prudent and wise move.

I deeply appreciate the enthusiasm of our OCing members but right now is just not the wisest time. Please keep in mind that we (the SD OC crowd and others) have your interests at heart, as well as everyone else's when we ask that you stand down for a little bit.

Keep it real.

-N8

GuyW
07-22-2009, 12:23 PM
We KNOW (even you Democrats here) that the CA Democrat legislators are all on hallucinogenic drugs (to judge by their budget fiascos)...

But do any of you believe that none of them understand that the state will be sued over its gun laws via incorporated Heller, and that banning OC will probably accelerate that process?? And that it will end badly for the state and cost more non-existent tax money?

.

.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 12:26 PM
Although I appreciate the idea abd benefit of holding off, I have no belief whatsoever that holding off the events will change the direction of anything.

Either this bill will pass or die, and no putting off of events will change that. I still believe we should stand our ground and risk that it may pass. In my opinion it is the better option. Sure we may have to live with it, but it might just give us the ammunition we need to fight it constitutionally.

Also understand that I will be fighting 626.9 on a constitutional basis.

E Pluribus Unum
07-22-2009, 12:30 PM
So then hold an OC event 1500 feet from a school. An extra 500 feet wont matter much.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:32 PM
I think you may be mis-reading the point, Theseus.

We aren't saying to hold off because we think it will make ANY difference to AB668.

We ARE saying to hold off because when we distribute handouts and information, they say 1000' at present. If someone gets a handout and decides to go open carrying after a minimal amount of research, they MAY MISS that the school zones were later expanded to 1500'. It is clear based upon some recent events that people below the "are you smart enough to OC?" threshold will rely upon the word and/or a handout from an OC group without performing adequate personal research. We simply want to ensure that while we can't get those guys to NOT open carry, we CAN ensure that the handouts and information they are relying upon are current.

We don't want people getting popped for being 1200' away when they thought 1000' away was safe. So, we want to wait until AB668 is a decided matter so that the information we give out will be accurate.

Think of it in shelf life: All handouts saying 1000' may currently have a shelf life of 2mo before they MAY (probably will) become toxic (i.e. people relying upon them and utterly compliant with the law as stated on them go to jail).

We want to ensure that future events are giving out handouts with a shelf life of at least 1yr, given that we're so close to the time when we'll know for sure.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 12:36 PM
Then if dis-information is the issue that is easily solved. No one should ever OC on just what someone says!

They should read the law, become aware of the law and inform themselves of what laws may be coming down. This disclaimer exists on my own open carry pamphlet and it should on all others.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:40 PM
Then if dis-information is the issue that is easily solved. No one should ever OC on just what someone says!

In this case it's not disinformation we're worried about, it's outdated information. NO ONE is saying for individuals to stand down - we are only asking that group events be scheduled after August 31st so that the correct, current information will be presented.

They should read the law, become aware of the law and inform themselves of what laws may be coming down. This disclaimer exists on my own open carry pamphlet and it should on all others.

This is the "should" unfortunately, not the "will".

The reality is that we have at least two guys in San Diego who (we think) just started after the Reader article. These guys are disconnected from the Calguns source and some of them are in 626.9 territory already based on the locations they listed going to.

Just like gun shop FUD can't be countered on Calguns if the guys hearing it never log into Calguns, open carry rule changes can't be passed on to non-Calgunners via Calguns.

Alaric
07-22-2009, 12:43 PM
Then if dis-information is the issue that is easily solved. No one should ever OC on just what someone says!

They should read the law, become aware of the law and inform themselves of what laws may be coming down. This disclaimer exists on my own open carry pamphlet and it should on all others.

In a perfect world, people would do just that. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who just don't do their research, or are going by outdated information that was presented to them in the past. We can only reach so many. Personally I considered myself well-versed on gun laws, until I discovered Calguns and had a reality check.

OC events are gaining more and more media attention these days. If there's an event in the near future that garners media attention and states the 1000' rule, that is likely to be enough to mislead some people into believing that's what it is, even though that's likely to change in the near future. After all, what the media says must be true, right? :(

Theseus
07-22-2009, 12:50 PM
Well, you all can do whatever you like, it is your choice. I am not OC because of my case. But I think that we should not hold off and simply ensure that we provide the information as best we can.

I can in fact have the pamphlet ready in 10 minutes mentioning AB668.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:51 PM
OC events are gaining more and more media attention these days. If there's an event in the near future that garners media attention and states the 1000' rule, that is likely to be enough to mislead some people into believing that's what it is, even though that's likely to change in the near future. After all, what the media says must be true, right? :(

EXACTLY. The Reader article said 1000', and we have no idea just how many guys are using that as their "gospel" and not checking in on updates.

As I said earlier, there are a metric ton of guys who, 9 years after SB23, are shocked at the gun show when I tell them their unregistered MAK-90 is a felony to possess in CA. "When did THAT happen?"

Where it comes to UOC and the comparatively high chance you will be approached by an officer for a 12031 check, the risk is considerably elevated that these individuals will NOT hear about the updated distance in time to save them from a 626.9 charge.

Hence why this is only a request to stand down EVENTS until we can provide reasonably far-reaching information to people. And it would be a good idea if people printed amended pamphlets in the interim to mention checking up on AB668, just in case someone uses that as their "gospel" for a while...

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Well, you all can do whatever you like, it is your choice. I am not OC because of my case. But I think that we should not hold off and simply ensure that we provide the information as best we can.

I can in fact have the pamphlet ready in 10 minutes mentioning AB668.

Very good; I would ask that you go ahead and do the updated pamphlet.

The problem however is that when you give news like this out, it DOES spread virally... when there is one pamphlet being read by 4 guys over a dinner table, only one of those guys is walking away with the pamphlet. If one of those other 3 guys decides to OC, they're doing so without the (possibly readily forgotten) mention of AB668.

The update is good, but please don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone exposed to the idea has a copy of the pamphlet.

erik
07-22-2009, 12:55 PM
Theseus: I think what pullnshoot25 and grammartron76 are getting at is this:

1. You hold an event next month.
2. Person gets pamphlet.
3. Person goes home and verifies all information is correct and legal.

4. Person doesn't realize law changes and their previous verification is void.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 12:59 PM
4. Person doesn't realize law changes and their previous verification is void.

PRECISELY.

A well-planned event would likely take a month anyway, so this really isn't TOO big of a deal anyway. As long as the event is happening after August 31st and the information being presented is current, we are not concerned on this point.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 1:22 PM
I understand that, I do.

But if the person is at the event I think we have the opportunity then to also inform them of the possible change and to be alerted to it.

But I also think that we can't be held to such a ridiculous standard. There are likely pamphlets that I handed out a year ago that are still making it around, but the law may change. If that same pamphlet is going around it has a "Information reliable as of creation Jun 7th, 2008."

Admittedly however, my custom form was created with the officer in mind, and not the citizen. I can't be responsible for the changing laws, all I can do is make sure the information is as current as it can be. It is not for me to hold their hand. If they take on the responsibility of OC then they take on the WHOLE responsibility.

Theseus: I think what pullnshoot25 and grammartron76 are getting at is this:

1. You hold an event next month.
2. Person gets pamphlet.
3. Person goes home and verifies all information is correct and legal.

4. Person doesn't realize law changes and their previous verification is void.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 1:30 PM
I understand that, I do.

But if the person is at the event I think we have the opportunity then to also inform them of the possible change and to be alerted to it.

Yes, but realistically "this might change soon" is unlikely to be retained by the guys who get the most excited about it.

All we're asking for is 1.5mo at present. First-time events should take around a month to plan anyway, so this is really just saying "take two extra weeks to plan your event, guys, and check up on the bill status on midnight of the 31st".

Steveo8
07-22-2009, 1:41 PM
Not to thread jack, but what is the status of your case Theseus?

Decoligny
07-22-2009, 1:44 PM
I just realized it was almost exactly at this time last year that the push went out for TPTB to "HOLD OFF ON OPEN CARRY UNTIL AFTER AUGUST".

Now we get another "HOLD OFF ON OPEN CARRY UNTIL AFTER AUGUST".

Should we organize an annual "Don't Open Carry because something might make the legislature change the law" party?

When we open carry during the rest of the year we have to put up with the "Open Carry hurts the cause" rants. And now we have to put up with "Someone too stupid to read the laws themselves might get into trouble"?

In the "Open Carry, Yes it's legal!" pamphlet, one of the first points I made was "KNOW THE LAW". Anyone who doesn't look it up for themselves is a fool. And nothing can be made foolproof, because fools are too ingenious. Somebody somewhere, regardless of how careful everybody is, is going to get themselves into trouble.

Should we stop doing everything that someone else might foolishly try to copy?

How about, "Let's quit telling people about OLLs and Bullet Buttons, because someone may not know all the intricacies and bring an 'Assault Weapon' to the range and get busted".

Fearing that someone may do something wrong should never be cause for someone to not exercise their rights.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 1:49 PM
Should we organize an annual "Don't Open Carry because something might make the legislature change the law" party?

Are you intentionally misrepresenting our statements?

We aren't saying OC events between now and Aug 31st will change the law at all. Please stop acting as if this IS what we're saying. The ACTUAL statements are towards the top of this thread and you may re-read them if they were unclear.

To summarize:

1. This is about EVENTS, not individuals.
2. Updating handouts is good.
3. A first event takes about a month to plan and coordinate anyway, so at present we're only asking for ~2wks delay.

How about, "Let's quit telling people about OLLs and Bullet Buttons, because someone may not know all the intricacies and bring an 'Assault Weapon' to the range and get busted".

Flash back to 2006... yes, we did go through that phase. We're past it now. Organized OC in California is fairly new in comparison vs OLL's at this point.

MudCamper
07-22-2009, 1:50 PM
AB668 is presently proposed and there is an excellent chance that it will pass. Among other things, AB668 will expand school zones from 1000' to 1500'. This will make MAJOR changes to open carry safe zones and such if it passes.

It will pass, regardless, because all anti-gun laws pass here, no matter how ridiculous they are, and this one isn't nearly as ridiculous as many of the others. Veto is the only hope to block any of them, and even that seems unlikely.

I sometimes wonder if the strategy of the CA legislature is to pass as many insane anti-gun laws as humanly possible before the courts can start challenging them post-incorporation, as a stalling effort. But that's probably giving them too much credit. I don't think they're that smart. They're just so clueless they don't know all these laws are now unconstitutional.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 1:57 PM
It will pass, regardless, because all anti-gun laws pass here, no matter how ridiculous they are, and this one isn't nearly as ridiculous as many of the others. Veto is the only hope to block any of them, and even that seems unlikely.

I sometimes wonder if the strategy of the CA legislature is to pass as many insane anti-gun laws as humanly possible before the courts can start challenging them post-incorporation, as a stalling effort. But that's probably giving them too much credit. I don't think they're that smart. They're just so clueless they don't know all these laws are now unconstitutional.

No disagreement there whatsoever. However, I wouldn't go updating ALL the pamphlets just yet and throwing away the 1000' ones... the fact the NRA isn't sending out action alerts when this law has so much potential impact, suggests to me that they may have something in line kind of like they had with Prop H in SF. It was scheduled to quietly die in committee.

...until some loudmouths brought it into public discussion and more or less forced the city to run with it, that is. Although that has nothing to do with the "stand down" request (if so, Gene probably would've requested it and not just some OC guys), a side benefit may be that we can avoid being those loudmouths.

wildhawker
07-22-2009, 2:57 PM
If you must, write the matl w/ 1500' as a guideline based on likely leg- at least give some poor bastard a chance at survival.

Theseus
07-22-2009, 3:55 PM
It does kind of make me wonder. . . Remember when that OC letter came out miss claiming a 1500 school zone? Think that was a mistake?

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 3:58 PM
It does kind of make me wonder. . . Remember when that OC letter came out miss claiming a 1500 school zone? Think that was a mistake?

It may have been a mistake based upon the school zone vs gun safe zone thing which AB668 is supposedly "clarifying", actually... now that I think of it.

hawk84
07-22-2009, 7:20 PM
It may have been a mistake based upon the school zone vs gun safe zone thing which AB668 is supposedly "clarifying", actually... now that I think of it.

ok, what is the "gun safe zone"

FreedomIsNotFree
07-22-2009, 7:59 PM
Since when do bills become law the minute they are signed? Unless its an urgency measure, which I have seen no indication that is it, then it would become law in January 2010.

bodger
07-22-2009, 8:03 PM
ok, what is the "gun safe zone"

Arizona.

slappomatt
07-22-2009, 9:18 PM
lol that is the saddest true statement I have read today. Yesterday the sadest thing I saw was a cute young girl driving a miyata w obama stickers all over it including the dashboard and the custom liscence plate read librl dem.....

what a waste of good skin.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 10:32 PM
ok, what is the "gun safe zone"

This thread best describes the difference between the "gun free zone" and the "school zone", both of which emanate from schools, but are presentyl different sizes: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204874


Since when do bills become law the minute they are signed? Unless its an urgency measure, which I have seen no indication that is it, then it would become law in January 2010.

It is correct that it would not become law until Jan 2010.

However, we're basically only asking people to hold off two weeks longer than it takes to PLAN a first open carry outing. By waiting for the deadline, there's no vagueness or uncertainty about what to tell newbies, etc.

Also, it's kind of unlikely that they'll turn around and expand it again in 2010. I suspect that while they may try new legislation against UOC in the future, school zones at 1500' will be the status quo for some time.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 10:36 PM
Grammaton What is sad is if they pass the bill as written now there are going to be some bad ramifications. For once I hope that our legislators get their head out of their arse and think instead of voting party lines. Although I seriously doubt it. As to the letter last year that claimed 1500 feet might have been a slip up on their part and just let the cat out of the bag a little early so to speak.

StoneRoots
07-22-2009, 10:42 PM
I really dont understand the problem with an OC event. All that would be needed is a minimal amount of research into the local schools to know where is ok and what is not. you can contact the school district to find a list of schools in the area. 1500 feet isnt very far anyways, thats not much more than a 2 minute walk, less than 1/3 of a mile.....im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws, but I dont think this is unreasonable, as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 10:45 PM
The reason it could be a problem while yes some that have experience know to double check and triple check things there are going to be those that go oh this says x is legal and so they don't bother to see if something has changed.

Alaric
07-22-2009, 10:54 PM
Do you know where all the small private schools are in your city? Will your average school district secretary you get on the phone? What about home schooled kids? Can you figure out the exact property boundaries for those addresses you get from the school district staff, and measure the distance accurately to the presumed location of your carry event?

There is a map available (using 1000', not 1500' radii) but it only uses the coordinates for the school address, not the actual boundaries of the school property to measure its' radius. Here: http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/

Theseus
07-22-2009, 10:55 PM
This is where you are wrong. I would not mind people carrying semi-automatic pistols or any other firearm around my childs school.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves and school zones do not allow people to do that. I love my daughter, but her right to safety does not supersede others rights to safety.

I really dont understand the problem with an OC event. All that would be needed is a minimal amount of research into the local schools to know where is ok and what is not. you can contact the school district to find a list of schools in the area. 1500 feet isnt very far anyways, thats not much more than a 2 minute walk, less than 1/3 of a mile.....im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws, but I dont think this is unreasonable, as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.

grammaton76
07-22-2009, 10:55 PM
I really dont understand the problem with an OC event. All that would be needed is a minimal amount of research into the local schools to know where is ok and what is not.

This is less about the event planning, and more about people who get ALL of their information from the event (or handouts distributed at it) and then don't research later on before UOC'ing on their own.

We already have guys in San Diego UOC'ing in school zones because they didn't glean from the Reader article an adequate sense of the urgency involved in checking for schools. People not "getting the memo" that it's 1500' now would be even worse.

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 11:13 PM
Yeah a lot worse. And with the changes they keep making to that bill its going to be a nightmare :(

KylaGWolf
07-22-2009, 11:16 PM
I really dont understand the problem with an OC event. All that would be needed is a minimal amount of research into the local schools to know where is ok and what is not. you can contact the school district to find a list of schools in the area. 1500 feet isnt very far anyways, thats not much more than a 2 minute walk, less than 1/3 of a mile.....im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws, but I dont think this is unreasonable, as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.

When you call the school district they may only have the information on the PUBLIC schools. They do not have the information on the charter schools and the private schools in the area. This can be problematic due to the fact that charter schools can be in strip malls and have little or no signage to show it is a school.

gravedigger
07-22-2009, 11:27 PM
You guys are correct. Open Carry IS a hot topic right now, and I think it is time to twist the arm of the READER a bit to get them to write a long, comprehensive and TRUTHFUL article on the absolute ridiculousness of the 1000 feet or 1500 feet "feel good" school rule.

The thinking by the brain-dead liberals is that a gun's bullet, even when the gun jumps out of the carrier's holster and intentionally fires a round directly at the school all by itself with NO help from any human being, the bullet will not harm a "child" because it can't travel 1500 feet. Well, far be it from me to explain to the walking dead sub-human Obama supporters that this is ONLY effective if their little illegitimate b*stard of a welfare ticket is standing dead center on the school grounds at the time. If their indoctrinated spawn is walking home, at ANY point outside of dead center on the school grounds, he/she/it is less than 1500 feet from their made-up junk science safety buffer barrier.

The public has to be made aware of how INSANE this law is, and how absolutely IMPOSSIBLE it is to obey, even when someone makes the conscious effort to seek out anything that might possibly be called a "School" by some leftist activist judge or an over zealous and height-challenged LEO who complains about a sore back because of the huge chip he carries around on his shoulder.

It ISN'T about 100 feet or 1500 feet, or only on alternate Tuesdays when you're wearing Old Spice and the price of sushi is less than 70 yen per piece in Bangcock ... it is about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

An honest citizen carrying a firearm is NO threat to "the children" on any school grounds, regardless of the distance some stupid "feel good" legislation tries to put between them. Quite honestly, there are NO examples of an honest law-abiding citizen with a weapon injuring or killing a "child" on school grounds, but there are PLENTY of examples in recent news where "children" were hurt or killed BECAUSE OF the "gun free zone" mentality that prevented ANYONE with a firearm from being able to respond to a school shooting in any reasonable time.

Come on folks. Lets concentrate on the stupidity of ANY law like this, and stop wasting our time on whether it will be 1000 feet or 1500 feet or five miles! IT DOESN'T MATTER. The law is completely unconstitutional.

StoneRoots
07-22-2009, 11:39 PM
Believe me I understand how you all feel, and we certaintly have quite a few private schools around Los Angeles. I really dont have a definate answer that would make everyone happy, but there needs to be something to put into place so that people can go about their everyday life without worrying how close they are to a school, be it public or private. Maybe not make it a crime to be within 1000 feet, or 1500 feet, etc, but I also dont want some guy standing around a school with a semi auto pistol 10 feet from where children are playing.. This world doesnt need absolutes, we can work things to make them in such a way that they are acceptable to all. But your right, if you were to get pulled over and you get a LEO whos out for a battle, then I would really be angry to get stuck with a school charge or something to that matter, when my intentions had nothing to do with the school or its activities...anyways. I will be working towards CCW in 2010. California is not completly over run with hybrid driving tofu gobblers, we CAN make a difference.

grammaton76
07-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Believe me I understand how you all feel, and we certaintly have quite a few private schools around Los Angeles. I really dont have a definate answer that would make everyone happy, but there needs to be something to put into place so that people can go about their everyday life without worrying how close they are to a school, be it public or private.

Interestingly enough, there are many other categories of individuals who are put into exactly the same quandary as open carry. We may not like them, but they are:

1. Pot smokers (there's a distance from school issue when smoking or possessing, forgot which - maybe both)
2. Registered sex offenders must not move within 1000' of a school, I think it is.
3. I was told you're not allowed to operate a bar or liquor store within 1000' of a school, but that could be wrong.

Can anyone else fill in some more classes of things you can'd do within X feet or miles of a school?

There may be other classes as well. The very interesting thing is that as criminal-coddling-oriented as California's "justice" system is, these classes of individual also have the same "do it within this radius and go to jail" issue. Yet the state refuses to bother doing anything to protect people from accidental incrimination. It is always going to be the citizen's burden of proof.

Seems to me that it's ripe for the ACLU to sue the state to provide a comprehensive map of schools, and for the laws to be rewritten to be binding ONLY upon schools on that list.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-23-2009, 1:15 AM
This is less about the event planning, and more about people who get ALL of their information from the event (or handouts distributed at it) and then don't research later on before UOC'ing on their own.

We already have guys in San Diego UOC'ing in school zones because they didn't glean from the Reader article an adequate sense of the urgency involved in checking for schools. People not "getting the memo" that it's 1500' now would be even worse.

So the concern and sense of urgency comes from the odd chance that a person will glean all of their UOC info from one single event and 4 months down the road decide to actually open carry without knowing a change has been made to the law?

Not only does this seem extremely unlikely, but I would like to think any event in the future would have pamphlets that discuss the possible changes that may become law. Seems more like an opportunity than a liability to me.

More info, not less info, is the proper way to address a lack of info.

grammaton76
07-23-2009, 1:27 AM
So the concern and sense of urgency comes from the odd chance that a person will glean all of their UOC info from one single event and 4 months down the road decide to actually open carry without knowing a change has been made to the law?

Not only does this seem extremely unlikely, but I would like to think any event in the future would have pamphlets that discuss the possible changes that may become law. Seems more like an opportunity than a liability to me.

We have CONFIRMED that there are people running around in ignorance of 626.9 in San Diego after (possibly due to) the Reader article, and posting about it openly on the internet. The Reader article freaking MENTIONED the 1000' school zone issue. 626.9 has been on the books for years! Also, going to a 1500' radius is close to doubling the area covered (recall formula for the area of a circle). If people are presently blundering into and out of 626.9 readily now (admittedly, people have been getting LUCKY a lot lately, but that WILL eventually change), imagine how much harder it's going to be to stay compliant in the future? The "average" guy won't stand a chance.

Given that we have this level of idiocy out there, how unlikely do you seriously consider it, that SEVERAL people won't bother checking to see whether or not the bill passed?

Moreover, are these people just deemed expendable, or what? I sure as heck do not consider them to be.

More info, not less info, is the proper way to address a lack of info.

Information does NOT equal events! Please re-read the topic of this thread, we are NOT asking for any kind of BS "blackout" or "we don't talk about UOC" or any such silliness. Only a hold off on event planning until the situation for the next year (minimum; probably several years) is well defined.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-23-2009, 1:35 AM
Again, you battle bad information or lack of information with CORRECT information.

Considering you are the one advocating a "black out" of UOC info/events I'm unclear why you are accusing me of viewing others as expendable.

If there are people with that level of idiocy regarding existing school zone laws wouldn't it be a more productive move to get CORRECT info out there?

grammaton76
07-23-2009, 1:37 AM
Again, you battle bad information or lack of information with CORRECT information.

Considering you are the one advocating a "black out" of UOC info/events I'm unclear why you are accusing me of viewing others as expendable.

If there are people with that level of idiocy regarding existing school zone laws wouldn't it be a more productive move to get CORRECT info out there?

Again, Information does NOT equal events! Please re-read the topic of this thread, we are NOT asking for any kind of BS "blackout" or "we don't talk about UOC" or any such silliness. For the record, CGF requested to be "quiet" about UOC last year, and we have at NO point asked for that.

We have ONLY asked for a hold off on event planning until the situation for the next year (minimum; probably several years) is well defined. We will have that on August 31st.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-23-2009, 2:08 AM
Again, Information does NOT equal events! Please re-read the topic of this thread, we are NOT asking for any kind of BS "blackout" or "we don't talk about UOC" or any such silliness. For the record, CGF requested to be "quiet" about UOC last year, and we have at NO point asked for that.

We have ONLY asked for a hold off on event planning until the situation for the next year (minimum; probably several years) is well defined. We will have that on August 31st.

Who is the "we" you speak of exactly? And what the heck is the difference if an "event" is held? Even if the law does change it wouldn't be implemented until 2010.

Wouldn't any form of communication, even an event, be useful to those that are currently NOT abiding by the existing school zone laws? Wouldn't an event be a perfect opportunity to start explaining the possible changes?

I don't UOC, but the bashing and belittling OC'ers have faced on this forum as of late is disgusting.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-23-2009, 7:23 AM
Also understand that I will be fighting 626.9 on a constitutional basis.



And while we have Nordyke, the grounds for doing so are present. So, I'm looking forward to your success.

As for the rest, I am firmly of two minds here. Leading those unwilling/unable to stay current on the law to misfortune would be a bad thing. But, an event is the best way to get "the word" out there & "the word" can easily include info about the possible change in the law.

But, who's to say that the change to 1,500' can't be stopped? A new day has dawned. More & more people are starting to realize that the 2A really is a good thing. Why don't we have an event that has as its theme a call for We The People to call their reps & stop the expansion to 1,500'?

The Raisuli

7x57
07-23-2009, 8:44 AM
as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.

Nonsense. If they're there to do something bad, the school zone is useless. I'd be happy if every teacher willing to be trained carried, and the same for the parents. I'd volunteer to do the training, too.

And that's not theoretical--I came to that conclusion when I put my four-year-old in preschool. Sure, they had a coded locked door--but all you have to do to get in is look like a parent and time your arrival to be a second after another parent. Courtesy ensures they'll hold the door for you. If you don't want to do that, anybody could hop the four-foot fence around the play area. It might keep a confused homeless man from wandering in by accident, but while scary to parents that's not likely to end in tragedy. They couldn't keep anyone out who could *really* do some damage.

I'm sure their security was as good as any and everything the state requires--but unless it were turned into a prison, it's really just there to make the parents feel better. But it only makes you feel better if you keep your eyes firmly shut and your fingers firmly in your ears. If you think about it, you don't feel good at all.

7x57

JTecalo
07-23-2009, 9:10 AM
If the 1500' passes, is there any legal liability on the OC groups that passed out the older pamphlets?

Say someone takes the info, doesn't keep up on the changes and gets arrested. In this litigious world I see lawyers all over something like that.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-23-2009, 9:21 AM
No. Liability would be on the person that broke the law. Those that create the pamphlets do so as individuals, not attorneys supplying legal advice. Have you read one of the uoc pamphlets? They make that perfectly clear.

mej16489
07-23-2009, 9:28 AM
Believe me I understand how you all feel, and we certaintly have quite a few private schools around Los Angeles. I really dont have a definate answer that would make everyone happy, but there needs to be something to put into place so that people can go about their everyday life without worrying how close they are to a school, be it public or private. Maybe not make it a crime to be within 1000 feet, or 1500 feet, etc, but I also dont want some guy standing around a school with a semi auto pistol 10 feet from where children are playing.. This world doesnt need absolutes, we can work things to make them in such a way that they are acceptable to all. But your right, if you were to get pulled over and you get a LEO whos out for a battle, then I would really be angry to get stuck with a school charge or something to that matter, when my intentions had nothing to do with the school or its activities...anyways. I will be working towards CCW in 2010. California is not completly over run with hybrid driving tofu gobblers, we CAN make a difference.

So, you believe that it's ok for a CCW holder to carry a gun within 1500' of a school? Only 'the annointed'?!? What would make a CCW holder any safer?

8-Ball
07-23-2009, 9:34 AM
add a paragraph to your handout explaining the ridiculous proposed expansion and the potential date of it becoming law. May do more for your educational cause than waiting...

I think you may be mis-reading the point, Theseus.

We aren't saying to hold off because we think it will make ANY difference to AB668.

We ARE saying to hold off because when we distribute handouts and information, they say 1000' at present. If someone gets a handout and decides to go open carrying after a minimal amount of research, they MAY MISS that the school zones were later expanded to 1500'. It is clear based upon some recent events that people below the "are you smart enough to OC?" threshold will rely upon the word and/or a handout from an OC group without performing adequate personal research. We simply want to ensure that while we can't get those guys to NOT open carry, we CAN ensure that the handouts and information they are relying upon are current.

We don't want people getting popped for being 1200' away when they thought 1000' away was safe. So, we want to wait until AB668 is a decided matter so that the information we give out will be accurate.

Think of it in shelf life: All handouts saying 1000' may currently have a shelf life of 2mo before they MAY (probably will) become toxic (i.e. people relying upon them and utterly compliant with the law as stated on them go to jail).

We want to ensure that future events are giving out handouts with a shelf life of at least 1yr, given that we're so close to the time when we'll know for sure.

mej16489
07-23-2009, 9:36 AM
The Reader article freaking MENTIONED the 1000' school zone issue. 626.9 has been on the books for years! Also, going to a 1500' radius is close to doubling the area covered (recall formula for the area of a circle).

Area of a circle = pi * r^2
at 1000'
3,141,590 sqft

at 1500'
7,068,577.5 sqft

225% the size of 1000' zone

Considering that the borders of the schools themselves can often stretch 1000', the expansion of the zone can easily reach mouch further.

grammaton76
07-23-2009, 9:39 AM
Who is the "we" you speak of exactly? And what the heck is the difference if an "event" is held? Even if the law does change it wouldn't be implemented until 2010.

Re-read the first page. This would be myself and Nathan. We ARE open carriers, and are involved in event planning for the San Diego events. I am fairly certain that most of the other people involved in planning the San Diego events are on the same page with us. If you're trying to paint this as some oddball Calgunner group that doesn't even open carry, you're far from it.

Wouldn't any form of communication, even an event, be useful to those that are currently NOT abiding by the existing school zone laws? Wouldn't an event be a perfect opportunity to start explaining the possible changes?

Have you ever attended an event? I have attended EVERY San Diego event so far. And realistically, there is no way to communicate things at an adequate level, to everyone we talk to when there's uncertainty ahead. Typically what the people we run into on the street get is a few minutes' talk and maybe a pamphlet. That's if we haven't run out. It's far from enough time to give the whole "maybe 1000, maybe 1500, check the legislature on August 1st", etc stuff and have it remembered by each and every person we talk to. There just is no way. After August 1st, we can hold events all we want WITHOUT the whole "maybe" thing.

Moreover, the chances of actually encountering the guys who are currently open carrying in school zones at an event, are almost nil. Not unless they're on the internet and happen to see the event notice - and if they can see the event notice, they'll have noticed they shouldn't be in school zones! That's the problem here - the outreach at our events only really contact new people, and not the ones we really need to educate to keep 'em out of jail.

I don't UOC, but the bashing and belittling OC'ers have faced on this forum as of late is disgusting.

You may perhaps have confused me with a non-UOC'er. I consider myself a moderate on the issue, but so far my event attendance record has been flawless. And I was in the Reader article along with Nathan and his brother. I guess that makes me just another outside naysayer, though...

Decoligny
07-23-2009, 10:01 AM
I really dont understand the problem with an OC event. All that would be needed is a minimal amount of research into the local schools to know where is ok and what is not. you can contact the school district to find a list of schools in the area. 1500 feet isnt very far anyways, thats not much more than a 2 minute walk, less than 1/3 of a mile.....im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws, but I dont think this is unreasonable, as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.

I want as many law abiding citizens with guns as close to where we keep our most prized and beloved things, our children, as possible.

I sure as hell would have LOVED it if a few law abiding citizens had been armed while walking past any of the following schools when the shooting started. Might have been able to actually stop some of the killings.

Feb. 2, 1996, Moses Lake, WA, Two students and one teacher killed, one other wounded when 14-year-old Barry Loukaitis opened fire on his algebra class.

Feb. 19, 1997, Bethel, AK, Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.

Oct. 1, 1997, Pearl, MS, Two students killed and seven wounded by Luke Woodham, 16, who was also accused of killing his mother.

Dec. 1, 1997, West Paducah, KY. Three students killed, five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14.

Dec. 15, 1997, Stamps, AR, Two students wounded. Colt Todd, 14, was hiding in the woods when he shot the students as they stood in the parking lot.

March 24, 1998, Jonesboro, AR, Four students and one teacher killed, ten others wounded outside as Westside Middle School emptied during a false fire alarm. Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, shot at their classmates and teachers from the woods.

April 24, 1998, Edinboro, PA, One teacher, John Gillette, killed, two students wounded at a dance at James W. Parker Middle School. Andrew Wurst, 14, was charged.

May 21, 1998, Springfield, OR, Two students killed, 22 others wounded in the cafeteria at Thurston High School by 15-year-old Kip Kinkel. Kinkel had been arrested and released a day earlier for bringing a gun to school. His parents were later found dead at home.

June 15, 1998, Richmond, VA, One teacher and one guidance counselor wounded by a 14-year-old boy in the school hallway.

April 20, 1999, Littleton, CO, 14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.

May 20, 1999, Conyers, GA, Six students injured at Heritage High School by Thomas Solomon, 15, who was reportedly depressed after breaking up with his girlfriend.

Dec. 6, 1999, Fort Gibson, OK, Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.

March 10, 2000, Savannah, GA, Two students killed by Darrell Ingram, 19, while leaving a dance sponsored by Beach High School.

March 5, 2001, Santee, CA, Two killed and 13 wounded by Charles Andrew Williams, 15, firing from a bathroom at Santana High School.

March 22, 2001, Granite Hills, CA, One teacher and three students wounded by Jason Hoffman, 18, at Granite Hills High School. A policeman shot and wounded Hoffman.

Nov. 12, 2001, Caro, MI, Chris Buschbacher, 17, took two hostages at the Caro Learning Center before killing himself.

Jan. 15, 2002, New York, NY, A teenager wounded two students at Martin Luther King Jr. High School.

October 28, 2002, Tucson, AZ, Robert S. Flores Jr., 41, a student at the nursing school at the University of Arizona, shot and killed three female professors and then himself.

April 14, 2003, New Orleans, LA, One 15-year-old killed, and three students wounded at John McDonogh High School by gunfire from four teenagers (none were students at the school). The motive was gang-related.

Sept. 24, 2003, Cold Spring, MN, Two students are killed at Rocori High School by John Jason McLaughlin, 15.

March 21, 2005, Red Lake, MN, Jeff Weise, 16, killed grandfather and companion, then arrived at school where he killed a teacher, a security guard, 5 students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.

Nov. 8, 2005, Jacksboro, TN, One 15-year-old shot and killed an assistant principal at Campbell County High School and seriously wounded two other administrators.

Aug. 24, 2006, Essex, VT, Christopher Williams, 27, looking for his ex-girlfriend at Essex Elementary School, shot two teachers, killing one and wounding another. Before going to the school, he had killed the ex-girlfriend's mother.

Sept. 27, 2006, Bailey, CO, Adult male held six students hostage at Platte Canyon High School and then shot and killed Emily Keyes, 16, and himself.

Oct. 3, 2006, Nickel Mines, PA, 32-year-old Carl Charles Roberts IV entered the one-room West Nickel Mines Amish School and shot 10 schoolgirls, ranging in age from 6 to 13 years old, and then himself. Five of the girls and Roberts died.

Oct. 10, 2007, Cleveland, OH, A 14-year-old student at a Cleveland high school, Asa H. Coon, shot and injured two students and two teachers before he shot and killed himself. The victims' injuries were not life-threatening.

This list is just K-12 School, I left out universities, I left out single victim shootings.

The Gun Free School Zone Act has turned our schools into Victim Disarmament Zones which provide lunatics the opportunity to use children as clay pigeons.

Decoligny
07-23-2009, 10:06 AM
Do you know where all the small private schools are in your city? Will your average school district secretary you get on the phone? What about home schooled kids? Can you figure out the exact property boundaries for those addresses you get from the school district staff, and measure the distance accurately to the presumed location of your carry event?

There is a map available (using 1000', not 1500' radii) but it only uses the coordinates for the school address, not the actual boundaries of the school property to measure its' radius. Here: http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/

Have you even taken the time to read 626.9?

You are talking about how important it is that anyone who open carries know the law, and you don't even seem to have the slightest idea of what it actually says.

My answer to the questions above is NO, and there is NO WAY for anyone to reasonably know.

But I do know (in my town) where every single public school and every single private school with a sign in front of it is located, and I know where their property ends.

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(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).

grammaton76
07-23-2009, 10:11 AM
Have you even taken the time to read 626.9?

You are talking about how important it is that anyone who open carries know the law, and you don't even seem to have the slightest idea of what it actually says.

My answer to the questions above is NO, and there is NO WAY for anyone to reasonably know.

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(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).

I am in complete agreement that "reasonably should know" is not really possible with the school zones.

However, it's being demonstrated in Theseus's case that "reasonably should know" is a very elastic concept and the state is free to decide however they wish on this point.

Irritates and annoys me, and as I said in another thread (I think) it surprises me that the state puts the same distance restrictions on pot smokers, child molesters, and other folks, yet it doesn't bother putting out any kind of canonical map for THEIR use, let alone for ours.

Decoligny
07-23-2009, 10:15 AM
I am in complete agreement that "reasonably should know" is not really possible with the school zones.

However, it's being demonstrated in Theseus's case that "reasonably should know" is a very elastic concept and the state is free to decide however they wish on this point.

Irritates and annoys me, and as I said in another thread (I think) it surprises me that the state puts the same distance restrictions on pot smokers, child molesters, and other folks, yet it doesn't bother putting out any kind of canonical map for THEIR use, let alone for ours.

Theseus's case deals primarily with the definition of "private property", not the "reasonably should know" aspect of 626.9.

JTecalo
07-23-2009, 10:18 AM
No. Liability would be on the person that broke the law. Those that create the pamphlets do so as individuals, not attorneys supplying legal advice. Have you read one of the uoc pamphlets? They make that perfectly clear.

Haven't seen one, I'd like to, any links for one.

I realize ignorance is no excuse, etc, etc.

In a world where personal responsibilty is not the norm, I just wondered how long it would be before somebody tried to sue. Stranger things have happened.

7x57
07-23-2009, 10:26 AM
Theseus's case deals primarily with the definition of "private property", not the "reasonably should know" aspect of 626.9.

Given that it doesn't appear that there would be any case if the court agreed that Theseus could not have "reasonably known" (as it is crystal clear he could not, but the court is simply refusing to obey the law), I think the case is all about "should have known" as well. Either exception, if accepted, would set him free.

7x57

Alaric
07-23-2009, 10:29 AM
Have you even taken the time to read 626.9?

You are talking about how important it is that anyone who open carries know the law, and you don't even seem to have the slightest idea of what it actually says.

My answer to the questions above is NO, and there is NO WAY for anyone to reasonably know.

But I do know (in my town) where every single public school and every single private school with a sign in front of it is located, and I know where their property ends.

626.9. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995.
(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).

I have read the law, yes, and as Gramma points out, the concept of "knows" or reasonably should know is very elastic (read: open to interpretation). My answer was in context to the question of specifically calling a school district and asking where the schools are. My point was that it's not reasonable to expect to be told the precise location of all schools (including private, charter, etc.) when seeking this info from a school district employee. It is entirely reasonable to believe then that an overzealous anti-gun LEO or DA could go out of their way to find a way to persecute you under this law. While the case might not end in a conviction, it could well land you with a confiscated weapon and thousands of $'s in legal fees.

FreedomIsNotFree
07-23-2009, 11:15 AM
Whether or not Theseus knew or should have known is a question left to the jury, not a matter of law that the judge will decide.

Decoligny
07-23-2009, 11:49 AM
Given that it doesn't appear that there would be any case if the court agreed that Theseus could not have "reasonably known" (as it is crystal clear he could not, but the court is simply refusing to obey the law), I think the case is all about "should have known" as well. Either exception, if accepted, would set him free.

7x57

IIRC the school in question was a public school in an area that Theseus actually lives in, and not an unmarked homeschool hidden from view on all four sides by a 12 foot cinderblock wall, the arguement of him not reasonably knowing never entered the picture. IIRC He was doing his laundry in a laundromat in his own town of Alhambra, so it could be argued that anyone actually living in Alhambra should reasonably know where the public schools are located.

GuyW
07-23-2009, 12:12 PM
.....im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws

No you're not.

as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens

Sure I would.

Why exactly are you on a gun board??

.

GuyW
07-23-2009, 12:14 PM
Do you know where all the small private schools are in your city? Will your average school district secretary you get on the phone? What about home schooled kids? Can you figure out the exact property boundaries for those addresses you get from the school district staff, and measure the distance accurately to the presumed location of your carry event?

There is a map available (using 1000', not 1500' radii) but it only uses the coordinates for the school address, not the actual boundaries of the school property to measure its' radius. Here: http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/

The legal standard is still, "that you reasonably know about". Knowing all private schools (home schools are legally private schools) is probably not "reasonabe".

.

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 12:17 PM
Do you know where all the small private schools are in your city? Will your average school district secretary you get on the phone? What about home schooled kids? Can you figure out the exact property boundaries for those addresses you get from the school district staff, and measure the distance accurately to the presumed location of your carry event?

There is a map available (using 1000', not 1500' radii) but it only uses the coordinates for the school address, not the actual boundaries of the school property to measure its' radius. Here: http://www.0xdecafbad.com/gfsz/

Here is the thing with home schools. They fall under the reasonable knowledge. There is no way to be reasonable with the knowledge on that one unless they have a sign posted. Second yes you can figure out the exact boundaries of the school. Even if it is a strip mall one it is the edge of their property line.

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 12:24 PM
I have read the law, yes, and as Gramma points out, the concept of "knows" or reasonably should know is very elastic (read: open to interpretation). My answer was in context to the question of specifically calling a school district and asking where the schools are. My point was that it's not reasonable to expect to be told the precise location of all schools (including private, charter, etc.) when seeking this info from a school district employee. It is entirely reasonable to believe then that an overzealous anti-gun LEO or DA could go out of their way to find a way to persecute you under this law. While the case might not end in a conviction, it could well land you with a confiscated weapon and thousands of $'s in legal fees.

You are somewhat correct that the word reasonable is somewhat open to interpretation. Here is where it comes a bit more concrete. There is no way to know for sure where a home school is unless you personally know the person or know someone that knows there is a home school there. If you do not have that personal knowledge then yes it would fall under reasonable knowledge of not knowing. And no you should never rely on the fact that the school district knows information. Half the time they don't even know their own information. Which is why you do research. Lets see phone books have a listing of all the schools in an area, you can also use things like google earth to figure out your plans. Now this being said that shouldn't be the only things you are going to use in planning your outing. Physically looking at the area may not be a bad idea either since as I said in another post charter schools can show up in strip malls with very little signage on it. But I have to agree with Grammaton on this one and say wait on OC until after August 31.

Theseus
07-23-2009, 12:36 PM
I still don't understand why everyone wants to go out and discover every single school, measure the grounds and map exactly where the 1000 feet ends. That is ridiculous and unreasonable.

Schools are hidden everywhere and no one person can be expected to know all of them and the exact point where the grounds of the school ends without conducting full and proper deed inspection.

Even further, how many times have you commuted to and from work for years and never noticed the <insert business or place here> until you got stuck in traffic and were looking around?

How many people can look at a building, and without any means of measuring device properly determine what 1000 feet looks like? How many of us can even do that?

7x57
07-23-2009, 12:40 PM
IIRC the school in question was a public school in an area that Theseus actually lives in, and not an unmarked homeschool hidden from view on all four sides by a 12 foot cinderblock wall, the arguement of him not reasonably knowing never entered the picture.

I was talking about the fact that not even the officers seem to be aware that he was within 1000' until they went back and measured it--that is good enough for me to say he could not be reasonably expected to know he was in the zone. Cops, at least beat cops who drive neighborhoods a lot, know them better than most people ever will (same as how well I learned a neighborhood when I delivered pizzas a long long time ago).

I suppose it's possible the "should have known" thing only applies to the existence of the school and not to precise measures of distance, but I'd like to see that confirmed.

7x57

bwiese
07-23-2009, 1:35 PM
.im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws, but I dont think this is unreasonable,

You are not like us and you are unreasonable.

as you would not want people walking around
your childs school with semi-automatic pistols,

I don't have kids but if I did have kids in school I'd prefer the armed citzenry around them less having semiauto pistols than M4s + Aimpoints..

regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.

I'd rather not have them in the victim-disarmed zones that you prefer to create.

As GuyW asked, why are you even here?

Your hyphenation of, and emphasis upon, the term "semi-automatic" likely implies you're not a gunnie and more likely an outsider troll here. Most gunfolk I know really don't distinguish much different functionality of a semiauto pistol from, say, a revolver.

KylaGWolf
07-23-2009, 1:42 PM
You are not like us and you are unreasonable.



I don't have kids but if I did have kids in school I'd prefer the armed citzenry around them less having semiauto pistols than M4s + Aimpoints..



I'd rather not have them in the victim-disarmed zones that you prefer to create.

As GuyW asked, why are you even here?

Your hyphenation of, and emphasis upon, the term "semi-automatic" likely implies you're not a gunnie and more likely an outsider troll here. Most gunfolk I know really don't distinguish much different functionality of a semiauto pistol from, say, a revolver.

You said it all. I think its a :troll:

-hanko
07-23-2009, 1:58 PM
.....im just like all of you when it comes to gun laws, but I dont think this is unreasonable, as you would not want people walking around your childs school with semi-automatic pistols, regardless if they are legal law-biding citizens or not.
English is my first language, but I also can speak fluent bull-puckey; allow me to translate;)

You're not at all like me when it comes to gun laws...

Are you suggesting that an armed "legal law-biding [sic] citizen" is not preferable to an armed individual who has not received a concealed carry license??

Are you further suggesting that criminals will take heed of school zone signs??

Generally, "reasonable" gun control laws equate to what Brady et al. would recommend.

Check the stats on gun crimes per capita in a shall-issue state v. CA. Re-read the Second Amendment. Compare & contrast what you see to your post. Let us know what you find.

Welcome to reality.

-hanko

berto
07-23-2009, 2:20 PM
Believe me I understand how you all feel, and we certaintly have quite a few private schools around Los Angeles. I really dont have a definate answer that would make everyone happy, but there needs to be something to put into place so that people can go about their everyday life without worrying how close they are to a school, be it public or private. Maybe not make it a crime to be within 1000 feet, or 1500 feet, etc, but I also dont want some guy standing around a school with a semi auto pistol 10 feet from where children are playing.

As opposed to some guy with a gun standing ten feet away from kids at the mall, or the park, or a front yard?

What about the cops on campus at some schools? Or the students on campus at some schools? There were two cops on campus at my jr. high. They each carried a .357. It didn't scare me nor did it make me feel safe.

All the silly laws, rules, and signs in the world won't stop some nutjob intent on doing evil at a school if he sets his mind to it.

nicki
07-23-2009, 2:46 PM
Okay, I can maybe buy that a K-12 school building, even the actual grounds may be a "Sensitive Zone".

I don't buy though that the "Sensitive Zone" spreads out beyond the "School Zone" and creates different classes of citizens.

Let me explain. A property owner near the school can have a loaded gun on their property which is right next to the school, but someone walking down the street, further away from the school, but within this 1000 feet zone will be criminally prosecuted.

Seems to me we have a conflict with both Ca and Fed equal protection rights here.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that there must be some standard as how a area becomes a "sensitive zone" and if that is so, why are property owners granted "Special rights" that are not available to the general public.

Since "sensitive zones" are an infringement, shouldn't they be subject to strict scrutiny review so as to limit the infringement in the least intrusive manner on people's 2nd amendment rights?

Nicki

Mulay El Raisuli
07-24-2009, 6:02 AM
Since "sensitive zones" are an infringement, shouldn't they be subject to strict scrutiny review so as to limit the infringement in the least intrusive manner on people's 2nd amendment rights?

Nicki



Now that we have incorporation here, yes, that should be the case. But, since "and bear" hasn't been decided yet, it isn't.

The Raisuli

Glock22Fan
07-24-2009, 7:06 AM
Let me explain. A property owner near the school can have a loaded gun on their property which is right next to the school, but someone walking down the street, further away from the school, but within this 1000 feet zone will be criminally prosecuted.

Nicki, If the person in the street enters, as a guest, the property owner's house, and the property owner gives permission, then they can both carry loaded guns.

If they both go out into the street, they can both be prosecuted for having a loaded gun.

Where is the discrimination?

demnogis
07-24-2009, 10:04 AM
... Also understand that I will be fighting 626.9 on a constitutional basis.

THIS IS WHY CALGUNS MEMBERS SHOULD BE DONATING TO THESEUS' CASE NOW!

Theseus
07-27-2009, 12:08 AM
THIS IS WHY CALGUNS MEMBERS SHOULD BE DONATING TO THESEUS' CASE NOW!

No, I think that at this point I will bear the burden. When my case makes good case law then I will take nominations for sainthood though. . . Haha.

Can'thavenuthingood
07-27-2009, 5:34 AM
St. Thesus.
The gunnie's Saint.
A brass medallion (your Avatar) on a chain.

Vick

E Pluribus Unum
07-27-2009, 12:15 PM
St. Thesus.
The gunnie's Saint.
A brass medallion (your Avatar) on a chain.

Vick

Isn't he the brother of St. Jude? The patron saint of lost causes.

Theseus
07-27-2009, 7:22 PM
Isn't he the brother of St. Jude? The patron saint of lost causes.

More like the half-brother. Dad always did favor him though. . .