PDA

View Full Version : School Districts Liability for Categorical Denial of Exemption from 626.9


Theseus
08-30-2009, 2:25 PM
The question has been posed a few times, mostly on OCDO. . . but some of us are wondering seriously. . .

A school district has the ability to exempt someone from 626.9. Most schools categorically deny any requests for exemption. By their doing so they are denying me the full opportunity to protect myself from being a victim of crime.

Since they have the ability to minimize the damages done to me by authorizing such exemption but instead intentionally choose not to minimize my damages, should I not then be able to hold them liable for the damages?

sfpcservice
08-30-2009, 2:53 PM
Maybe consider asking them in writing if it is their policy to deny all requests. If they say yes, wouldn't that be in violation of guillory vs. gates?

If they say it is case by case, I would respond by asking them what criteria they use to make their decision.

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 3:41 PM
Non private schools are exempt from any such liability. The legislature has made the (wrong) public policy decision and once that occurred, the school district would be immune absent extraordinary circumstances from any claim that arised from their denying you permission to carry.

-Gene

Theseus
08-30-2009, 4:08 PM
So you are saying that by giving them the permission to authorize and exempt someone they are also removing the schools liability from exercising that power?

So that being the case, if a school district summarily denies all request for exemption, then can they be charged with not exercising their power?

Something like a due process issue? They have the power, and to deny every request without consideration isn't due process. . . is it?

sfpcservice
08-30-2009, 4:11 PM
So the California Legislature has in effect placed our not yet incorporated right to bear arms into the sole hands of the school district? Somehow I think this law's days are very numbered.....

POLICESTATE
08-30-2009, 4:39 PM
I don't understand what the deal is with this, i assume it has something to do with UOC within 1000 feet of a school?

Librarian
08-30-2009, 4:43 PM
I don't understand what the deal is with this, i assume it has something to do with UOC within 1000 feet of a school?

Yes - see http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones

Theseus is currently being prosecuted under the GFSZ law.

CitaDeL
08-30-2009, 4:47 PM
I don't understand what the deal is with this, i assume it has something to do with UOC within 1000 feet of a school?

Yes. And this this debate over the refusal of a school district to exercise its discretion is very interesting.

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).

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 5:29 PM
Yes. And this this debate over the refusal of a school district to exercise its discretion is very interesting.

Actually it is not. That Legislature empowered school districts to create exceptions does not at all mean that there is any due process right for them to consider your request.

The Legislature empowers the police (state/municipal/county entities) to protect you, but you can't sue them if they don't answer 911 calls or don't do something that clearly could have saved your life. Why would you think different rules would apply to state/municipal/county entities called schools?

-Gene

Theseus
08-30-2009, 10:20 PM
It was worth a try at least, even if it was misguided.

I guess I am just amazed that they can deprive you of your rights which can make you more susseptable to damages but not be liable for it.

It blows my mind man!

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 10:25 PM
I guess I am just amazed that they can deprive you of your rights which can make you more susseptable to damages but not be liable for it.

It blows my mind man!

The issue is that until Incorporation is completely done it is clear that they were not denying you a right. After Incorporation they may be denying you a right - or they might not since being licensed under PC 12050 exempts you.

Either way this is not as obvious as those who don't really understand the actual scope of fundamental rights would assume on first glance.

-Gene

Roadrunner
08-30-2009, 10:42 PM
The issue is that until Incorporation is completely done it is clear that they were not denying you a right. After Incorporation they may be denying you a right - or they might not since being licensed under PC 12050 exempts you.

Either way this is not as obvious as those who don't really understand the actual scope of fundamental rights would assume on first glance.

-Gene

So what I see you writing is once incorporation happens, and shall issue becomes the law of the state, GFSZ's become effectively a moot point once thousands of people get on board with CCW's. Did I read that correctly? And what about knives?

hoffmang
08-30-2009, 10:50 PM
So what I see you writing is once incorporation happens, and shall issue becomes the law of the state, GFSZ's become effectively a moot point once thousands of people get on board with CCW's. Did I read that correctly? And what about knives?

Carry permits exempt you from GFSZs for firearms. I need to look a lot closer about knives but I'm not sure you are limited from carrying knives within 1000'...

-Gene

Librarian
08-30-2009, 11:49 PM
Carry permits exempt you from GFSZs for firearms. I need to look a lot closer about knives but I'm not sure you are limited from carrying knives within 1000'...

-Gene

Need to distinguish 'zones' from 'property/campus'. CCW is an exemption for both of those, for handguns.

GFSZ has nothing at all to do with knives (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2289918&postcount=6), but 626.10 does (FindLaw's 626.10 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/15/1/s626.10) is botched - cuts off at 8 lines) and 626.10 has no exceptions in it for 12050 licensees - but it covers only 'property/campus'.

Some other local law might, however, affect knives you can carry in school zones or in public or on Tuesdays in months with an "r" ...

As things stand, one with a CCW might easily skate by carrying a gun on a campus, but get dinged for the 'wrong' knife.

Theseus
08-31-2009, 11:23 AM
The issue is that until Incorporation is completely done it is clear that they were not denying you a right. After Incorporation they may be denying you a right - or they might not since being licensed under PC 12050 exempts you.

Either way this is not as obvious as those who don't really understand the actual scope of fundamental rights would assume on first glance.

-Gene

Although the State does not recognize our right to arms, they do however recognize our right to self defense.

gun toting monkeyboy
08-31-2009, 11:48 AM
Knives are kosher within a GFSZ, as they are not guns. As long as you are carrying a knife legally, there isn't f***-all they can do about it unless you actually set foot on school property. Now, assuming that up plan on carrying a knife on school property, it MUST be a folding knife, with a non-locking blade less than 2.5 inches to be legal on a k-12 school. And you can't go waving it around. As I have said before, while our gun laws suck, our knife laws are actually pretty liberal. Outside of schools and some limited government buildings, if you have a folding knife, you can carry it concealed or non-concealed pretty much everywhere. Regardless of size. If you can come up with a folding machete or katana that meets the legal requirements, it would still be legally considered a folding knife. And still be legal to walk around with, even if you want to carry it under a trench coat ala Highlander.

-Mb

HondaMasterTech
08-31-2009, 11:55 AM
Seriously, you could be prosecuted for carrying a gun to your car on your own property? And, seriously, what are we supposed to do?

Theseus
08-31-2009, 12:40 PM
Seriously, you could be prosecuted for carrying a gun to your car on your own property? And, seriously, what are we supposed to do?

Transport it in a secure fully enclosed locked container.

HondaMasterTech
08-31-2009, 1:05 PM
Transport it in a secure fully enclosed locked container.

And, that's ALL guns not just handguns, right?

Librarian
08-31-2009, 1:14 PM
And, that's ALL guns not just handguns, right?

For California law, just handguns.

For Federal law, all guns, though long guns can be in a locking gun rack.

GFSZ (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Gun_Free_School_Zones)

hoffmang
08-31-2009, 2:03 PM
Although the State does not recognize our right to arms, they do however recognize our right to self defense.

And you can use anything except a firearm in a California GFSZ.

-Gene

locosway
08-31-2009, 11:30 PM
Curious, if someone lives in the school zone, and they were to investigate a noise outside, could they not be armed?

Assuming they stay on their property which is not fenced in.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 11:32 PM
Curious, if someone lives in the school zone, and they were to investigate a noise outside, could they not be armed?

Assuming they stay on their property which is not fenced in.

Not legally.

locosway
08-31-2009, 11:36 PM
I suppose there is no way to fight that with a law suit, right?

hoffmang
08-31-2009, 11:49 PM
I suppose there is no way to fight that with a law suit, right?

Not before Incorporation. Potentially afterward.

-Gene

locosway
08-31-2009, 11:52 PM
Not before Incorporation. Potentially afterward.

-Gene

Ok, makes sense. What about this angle?

Since you do have the right to protect yourself, and you do have the right to investigate. Wouldn't it be common sense to arm yourself as you may run into an armed suspect?

That's the same logic the police use for carrying a firearm, right?

artherd
09-01-2009, 12:27 AM
I wonder if some elements of Salute v. Pitchess would apply here - as this is a discretionary issue. The wording of the statute however is not as copacetic as 12050.

While a court cannot compel a public officer to exercise his discretion in any particular manner, it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We regard the case at bench as involving a refusal of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only three limits on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be of good moral character, show good cause and be a resident of the county. To determine, in advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected public officials can show good cause is to refuse to consider the existence of good cause on the part of citizens generally and is an abuse of, and not an exercise of, discretion.

artherd
09-01-2009, 12:28 AM
Ok, makes sense. What about this angle?

Since you do have the right to protect yourself, and you do have the right to investigate. Wouldn't it be common sense to arm yourself as you may run into an armed suspect?

"Common sense" is not how this works...

In any event, we need incorporation to have a strong case here.

7x57
09-01-2009, 11:29 PM
Although the State does not recognize our right to arms, they do however recognize our right to self defense.

That's almost reasonable, actually. The state Constitution specifically mentions the right to self defense. If you squint with the eyes of a law professor, you can miss the intent that that defense be effective. But the plain words don't say arms, and do say defense.

7x57

jnojr
09-02-2009, 8:55 AM
Maybe consider asking them in writing if it is their policy to deny all requests. If they say yes, wouldn't that be in violation of guillory vs. gates?

If they say it is case by case, I would respond by asking them what criteria they use to make their decision.

FOIA request... ask for their policies, information on all requests for exemption and their disposition, etc.

Meplat
09-02-2009, 4:07 PM
It was worth a try at least, even if it was misguided.

I guess I am just amazed that they can deprive you of your rights which can make you more susseptable to damages but not be liable for it.

It blows my mind man!

I am amazed that you, of all people, can still be amazed at this bullschumer.;)

Meplat
09-02-2009, 4:15 PM
Need to distinguish 'zones' from 'property/campus'. CCW is an exemption for both of those, for handguns.


My CCW states on it's face that it does not authorize carry on school grounds, national parks, or commercial airports. Carry in School zones is authorized.

I guess the issuing agency can put whatever conditions they want on it?

Theseus
09-02-2009, 4:20 PM
My CCW states on it's face that it does not authorize carry on school grounds, national parks, or commercial airports. Carry in School zones is authorized.

I guess the issuing agency can put whatever conditions they want on it?

Well, I wonder how that works. . you can OC in airport, national parks (soon). . . Why not allow you to CC with a permit?

Librarian
09-02-2009, 6:31 PM
My CCW states on it's face that it does not authorize carry on school grounds, national parks, or commercial airports. Carry in School zones is authorized.

I guess the issuing agency can put whatever conditions they want on it?

Yes. I'm not sure that's necessarily 'unfortunate', but it's a different part of PC than the 626.9 school zone stuff. GFSZ simply exempts 12050 license holders.

12050 and following allows the issuer to put conditions on the license; it seems to be 'if you violate your conditions on your CCW, the CCW is not valid at that time'.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 7:12 PM
Well, I wonder how that works. . you can OC in airport, national parks (soon). . . Why not allow you to CC with a permit?

Because OC doesn't require a permit and doesn't allow for a Sheriff/CoP to put discretionary limits on your rights.

GuyW
09-02-2009, 7:15 PM
Well, I wonder how that works. . you can OC in airport, national parks (soon). . . Why not allow you to CC with a permit?

Concealed carry in National Parks with a state-recognized CCW. Since when was open carry on the books?

.

Theseus
09-02-2009, 10:57 PM
Concealed carry in National Parks with a state-recognized CCW. Since when was open carry on the books?

.

Unless I am wrong, the law allowing not only concealed weapons will also effect open carry in the fact that the parks are now following the gun laws of the state. . . making OC and licensed CC legal in National Parks in California.

Unless I am mistaken and that was only National Forests?

MudCamper
09-03-2009, 1:21 AM
Concealed carry in National Parks with a state-recognized CCW. Since when was open carry on the books?

.

Unless I am wrong, the law allowing not only concealed weapons will also effect open carry in the fact that the parks are now following the gun laws of the state. . . making OC and licensed CC legal in National Parks in California.

Unless I am mistaken and that was only National Forests?

National Forests have always allowed open carry, and concealed carry if licensed. National Parks will do both beginning late February next year.

And don't confuse the now blocked Bush order with HR627 which was signed by Obama. See Firearms in Forests and Parks (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457).