PDA

View Full Version : How's this for a School Zone law?


Pont
12-19-2009, 3:52 PM
(I doubt I'm the first person to think about it on this board, so apologies in advance if this seems cliche)

No proselytizing politically or religiously in a School Zone. "School Zone" and exceptions for private property are defined exactly the same as the gun laws.

The idea that we can have a "School Zone" in a "you should know you're 1000 feet from a school" area encoded into the law is ridiculous. We already have a legally defined School Zone -- farking signs posted that say "School Zone - 25MPH". Seeing as cars kill way more children than guns, it seems unreasonable that the restricted zone for cars should be smaller than the restricted zone for guns.

...and now I'll stop preaching to the choir.

LiberalGunner
12-19-2009, 4:49 PM
I think you're 100% correct. To make vague laws or laws impossible to abide by invites violation. Many times you don't realize you're in a school zone until you start to see the traffic signs. I agree with you Pont

mblat
12-19-2009, 5:03 PM
You assume that this law was suppose to be reasonable. When comes to gun laws this is huge and totally unfounded assumption.

Here is the point. 1000 is just another arbitrary number. It is no different from 16" barrel for rifle, 18" for shotguns or 10 rounds for magazine capacity. They all capricious, luck any scientific foundation, and unreasonable almost by design.

Vinz
12-19-2009, 5:10 PM
You assume that this law was suppose to be reasonable. When comes to gun laws this is huge and totally unfounded assumption.

Here is the point. 1000 is just another arbitrary number. It is no different from 16" barrel for rifle, 18" for shotguns or 10 rounds for magazine capacity. They all capricious, luck any scientific foundation, and unreasonable almost by design.
exactly!


The way I see it, if you wanna play you have to know and abide by the rules set forth. No matter how ridiculous they seem.

Owning, travelling with and carrying a gun a big responsibility so doing a quick search on the areas you might be passing is a lot easier than looking for a lawyer. Did you not do research before you purchased your first gun?

One reason they have the school rule is to impose heavier fines and increase jail times for thugs that often frequent the areas buying and or selling drugs. It wasn't a way to "catch" law abiding gun owners making a mistake. We must face that its not always about us.


Vinz

Turo
12-19-2009, 5:18 PM
One reason they have the school rule is to impose heavier fines and increase jail times for thugs that often frequent the areas buying and or selling drugs. It wasn't a way to "catch" law abiding gun owners making a mistake. We must face that its not always about us.

Yeah, that's the reason that was given when the law was proposed, but it's not being used like that now...

It is being used to punish otherwise law-abiding citizens now.

Pont
12-19-2009, 6:21 PM
You assume that this law was suppose to be reasonable. When comes to gun laws this is huge and totally unfounded assumption.

Oh, I assumed nothing of the sort.

I guess my point is if we could somehow force "School Zone" to be a single, unified concept in the law (i.e. School Zone == Posted Signs and 25MPH max), all the people who don't care a thing about gun rights would at the very least force their reps to shrink School Zone boundaries as small as they needed to be.

Cokebottle
12-19-2009, 6:39 PM
The entire concept of a rights-free zone (of any size) should be challenged in court.
It is completely ineffective at "protecting the children", in part due to the fact that their are exemptions, but also due to the fact that criminals don't care about laws.

There is nothing physically stopping someone from pulling into a school parking lot with a gun in their car and opening up on the kids.
Opening up on the kids is illegal, why should it being illegal to take the gun into the parking lot make a difference in what the criminal will do.

dustoff31
12-19-2009, 6:47 PM
You assume that this law was suppose to be reasonable. When comes to gun laws this is huge and totally unfounded assumption.

Here is the point. 1000 is just another arbitrary number. It is no different from 16" barrel for rifle, 18" for shotguns or 10 rounds for magazine capacity. They all capricious, luck any scientific foundation, and unreasonable almost by design.


You are absolutely right.

Why does there need to be a "school zone" at all.

How about just using the definition most other states use. Such as, "School Grounds - in or upon the grounds of a school."

dustoff31
12-19-2009, 6:51 PM
The entire concept of a rights-free zone (of any size) should be challenged in court.

It was. The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act which included a 1000 foot school zone was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS 15 years ago.

Cokebottle
12-19-2009, 6:55 PM
It was. The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act which included a 1000 foot school zone was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS 15 years ago.
So why is Theseus now a prohibited person under 626.9?

It obviously needs to be challenged again.

dustoff31
12-19-2009, 7:00 PM
So why is Theseus now a prohibited person under 626.9?

It obviously needs to be challenged again.


He was charged under CA law. Not federal law.

Cokebottle
12-19-2009, 7:01 PM
He was charged under CA law. Not federal law.
Both should be unconstitutional.

dustoff31
12-19-2009, 7:04 PM
Both should be unconstitutional.

I agree.

The reason SCOTUS struck down the federal law was because they thought the feds lacked jurisdiction.

After incorporation, the CA law may well be ripe for challenge.

GrizzlyGuy
12-19-2009, 7:34 PM
I agree.

The reason SCOTUS struck down the federal law was because they thought the feds lacked jurisdiction.

After incorporation, the CA law may well be ripe for challenge.

Yes, the federal law should be an easy smack-down for SCOTUS since Congress said they were using their "power" under the commerce clause to enact it (after they re-enacted it post-first-smackdown). As if kiddies going to school has anything to do with interstate commerce... :rolleyes:

But since the feds rarely prosecute anyone on it, there may not be an opportunity for the federal courts to act.

The state law is a tougher cookie. It already exempts CCW, and if we get shall-issue CCW after incorporation, it might then fall into the 'reasonable restriction' category from the feds' point of view.

The CA constitution is no help at all. I was reading through it again the other day, and found all kinds of vague 'enumerated' powers that could justify virtually any law related to safety and/or education (or virtually anything else for that matter). And if those powers aren't enough, the flippin' thing can be amended via a simple majority vote of the citizens, rendering our "republic" a mob-rule democracy.

I got curious as to how a constitution could get that, uh, flubbed up... so I did some Googling. Found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Constitution) over in Wikipedia:

The original constitution, adopted in November 1849 in advance of California attaining U.S. statehood in 1850, was superseded by the current constitution, which was ratified on May 7, 1879. The result of Progressive mistrust of elected officials, the 1879 constitution is the third longest in the world (behind those of Alabama and India), and has been described as "the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be".

Dohhh! The progressives strike again. :mad:

dustoff31
12-19-2009, 7:48 PM
Yes, the federal law should be an easy smack-down for SCOTUS since Congress said they were using their "power" under the commerce clause to enact it (after they re-enacted it post-first-smackdown). As if kiddies going to school has anything to do with interstate commerce... :rolleyes: :


It is rather comical. SCOTUS said you can't use the commerce clause to do this. The legislature then passed essentially the same bill, adding, "Oh, yes we can."


But since the feds rarely prosecute anyone on it, there may not be an opportunity for the federal courts to act.

I've seen it used in AZ as an add on for those commiting other crimes in a school zone, occasionally. Other than that, it is widely ignored.


The state law is a tougher cookie. It already exempts CCW, and if we get shall-issue CCW after incorporation, it might then fall into the 'reasonable restriction' category from the feds' point of view.

The CA constitution is no help at all. I was reading through it again the other day, and found all kinds of vague 'enumerated' powers that could justify virtually any law related to safety and/or education (or virtually anything else for that matter). And if those powers aren't enough, the flippin' thing can be amended via a simple majority vote of the citizens, rendering our "republic" a mob-rule democracy.

I got curious as to how a constitution could get that, uh, flubbed up... so I did some Googling. Found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Constitution) over in Wikipedia:



Dohhh! The progressives strike again. :mad:

You've got a good point about the state law. SCOTUS didn't say you can't that. They merely said you can't do that using this vehicle.

Meplat
12-19-2009, 7:48 PM
The traffic portion would simply not be enforced. It's only when children are present and outside the fence anyway.


Oh, I assumed nothing of the sort.

I guess my point is if we could somehow force "School Zone" to be a single, unified concept in the law (i.e. School Z Posted Signs and 25MPH max), all the people who don't care a thing about gun rights would at the very least force their reps to shrink School Zone boundaries as small as they needed to be.

Californio
12-19-2009, 7:54 PM
10 generations of my family in California survived without GFSZ, I am sure my 11th generation children could do so as well, get rid of the stupid law and the idiots that enacted it.

nicki
12-20-2009, 8:10 AM
When we bring up the issue of school zones, we must look at events that caused us to get the school zones in the first place.

The whole school zones concept is based not on facts, but as an emotional response to a few school shootings.

The concept of school zones is this.

If we make a law prohibiting people from bringing guns within 1000 feet of a school, bad people won't come onto school grounds and shoot up the kids.

There is no comparison between driving and guns.

People drive around school zones and the posted lower speed limits say, ONLY WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT, and that is because some children will run onto roadways and if drivers are driving at NORMAL SPEEDS, they won't be able to stop.

People carrying guns in urban areas normally aren't shooting their guns.

Ultimately this will probably go back to the Supreme court since the Court came up with the concept of "Sensitive Zones".

Someone is going to ask what makes any zone "Sensitive".

I can see something along the line that guns can be restricted on school grounds themselves, but the 1000 feet or whatever school zone won't fly because it is unreasonable.

The "Sensitive Zone" will survive on things like court houses, jails, prisons, government bodies, secure areas of airports.

All those areas have restricted access, metal detectors and if a bad person breeches the security, armed security to protect the people inside the sensitive zones.

Right now all the school zone 1000 foot ban ensures is that if a school shooting happens, no one who can come in and stop the shooting will be within 1000 feet.

At that rate, the body count will probably keep rising because someone with a gun won't hear the shots.

As far as the police. Police officers are not going to rush in and engage a shooter without backup, more than likely a SWAT team.

SWAT teams are good when dealing with a hostage situation, but when you have an active shooter, every minute of delay averages one or more dead victim.

Our schools are actually open targets to a terrorist attack, we have been lucky so far, the reality is the Gun Free School Zones don't protect our children, rather they endanger their lives.

Regrettably, I don't think we will change things until we have a school massacre where 100 or more children are murdered.

We should learn from Israel, but that just makes too much sense.

Nicki



Nicki

LiberalGunner
12-20-2009, 8:37 AM
You assume that this law was suppose to be reasonable. When comes to gun laws this is huge and totally unfounded assumption.

Here is the point. 1000 is just another arbitrary number. It is no different from 16" barrel for rifle, 18" for shotguns or 10 rounds for magazine capacity. They all capricious, luck any scientific foundation, and unreasonable almost by design.

Why is it that on this site, everyone seems to think any gun regulation is unreasonable? If I went over to a hotrod forum, would everyone there be complaining that the 65mph speed limit is "arbitrary"? Griping about the science of it?

I bet there's some meat packing plant employee who's mad that X rats per day falling into the meat grinder is OK but X+ 1 is banned by the FDA. He's pulling his hair out that it's an arbitrary number.

Look at yourselves!

davescz
12-20-2009, 8:40 AM
exactly!


The way I see it, if you wanna play you have to know and abide by the rules set forth. No matter how ridiculous they seem.

Owning, travelling with and carrying a gun a big responsibility so doing a quick search on the areas you might be passing is a lot easier than looking for a lawyer. Did you not do research before you purchased your first gun?

One reason they have the school rule is to impose heavier fines and increase jail times for thugs that often frequent the areas buying and or selling drugs. It wasn't a way to "catch" law abiding gun owners making a mistake. We must face that its not always about us.


Vinz

that is a bunch of bull you are preaching, these lUn-Constitutional aws are designed to limit our Rights. this has nothing to do with drug dealers and thugs. heck, if they wanted to (and they would have my support) drug dealers and thugs shoudl get stiff penalties ANYWHERE not just in front of a school.
I do not cede my Civil Rights in the street in front of my home to thugs and druggies. and corrupt anti-gun politicians.

If you think this law is good, you should get the hell off this website.


Since my home is sorrounded by school zones, I cant even walk my gun outside on the street if I hear a break in, or a car being stolen. I would be prosectuted by the liberal retards that support these kind of anti-civil rights laws.

you are so wrong.

My guns are effectly banned out side my own home, yeah it is all about druggies and thugs hurting school kids, thats a bunch of BS, the legal system could crack down on druggies and thugs, but wont, they dont want to offend the liberals, but they are more than happy to restrict your civil rights even outside your own home.

go back to hand gun control you troll you.

GrizzlyGuy
12-20-2009, 9:12 AM
Why is it that on this site, everyone seems to think any gun regulation is unreasonable? If I went over to a hotrod forum, would everyone there be complaining that the 65mph speed limit is "arbitrary"? Griping about the science of it?

You are over generalizing and unfairly throwing everyone into the same pot. Many on this site believe that some gun regulation is reasonable. For example, most likely believe that guns should not be in the hands of people convicted for violent felonies.

Where many of us differ from you is in regard to which regulations are reasonable or unreasonable, and why.

bodger
12-20-2009, 9:26 AM
You are over generalizing and unfairly throwing everyone into the same pot. Many on this site believe that some gun regulation is reasonable. For example, most likely believe that guns should not be in the hands of people convicted for violent felonies.

Where many of us differ from you is in regard to which regulations are reasonable or unreasonable, and why.


I'm one of those who believe that some of the existing gun regulations are good, and sensible.

But in CA especially, many (most) of them are arbitrary and ridiculous and were only enacted in the first place so as to assert control for the sake of control. Or political gain.

GFSZ is the Catch-22 to UOC.

GaryV
12-20-2009, 9:28 AM
I agree.

The reason SCOTUS struck down the federal law was because they thought the feds lacked jurisdiction.

After incorporation, the CA law may well be ripe for challenge.

Incorporation won't matter, since the federal law was originally struck down for reasons that have nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

2009_gunner
12-20-2009, 10:12 AM
Why is it that on this site, everyone seems to think any gun regulation is unreasonable? If I went over to a hotrod forum, would everyone there be complaining that the 65mph speed limit is "arbitrary"? Griping about the science of it?

I bet there's some meat packing plant employee who's mad that X rats per day falling into the meat grinder is OK but X+ 1 is banned by the FDA. He's pulling his hair out that it's an arbitrary number.

Look at yourselves!

Look at YOU!

How does a 14" rifle become worse than a 16" rifle? It makes no sense.

Having foreign contaminent in food is a horrible analogy. I've seen you make many bad ones, and I think you should stick to commenting about guns. The capricious analogies are difficult to take seriously.

If you want to talk about more "dangerous" guns, I could sort of understand you making comments on very large 20mm caliber rifles. But really... rifle length?

GaryV
12-20-2009, 10:16 AM
Why is it that on this site, everyone seems to think any gun regulation is unreasonable? If I went over to a hotrod forum, would everyone there be complaining that the 65mph speed limit is "arbitrary"? Griping about the science of it?

I bet there's some meat packing plant employee who's mad that X rats per day falling into the meat grinder is OK but X+ 1 is banned by the FDA. He's pulling his hair out that it's an arbitrary number.

Look at yourselves!

Have you looked on such forums? Do you have any idea how "unreasonable" a significant number of motorcycle owners think helmet laws are? Are you old enough to remember how vilified the 55mph speed limit was, and all the griping there was about it? Spend some real time on motorsports forums and you'll be surprised just how much many enthusiasts complain about regulations that most of us would probably consider reasonable.

The more important point is, what is the ulterior motive of a law, what is its actual effect, and how is it applied.

The No Guns-School Zone law serves no reasonable purpose, since the criminal activities that it purports to be there to prevent are already illegal. If you want to increase the penalties on people who commit those crimes, simply increase the sentencing guidelines for selling drugs on or near schools, or for school violence. Why pick out a supposedly related activity, possessing a gun, and criminalize it? That doesn't make sense, especially since this other activity is not universally associated with the actual crimes we're supposedly trying to deter, and is an activity much more commonly participated in by otherwise law-abiding citizens? And why prosecute otherwise law-abiding citizens for this activity, unless your real motive is to deter or prevent law-abiding citizens from legally owning and carrying guns?

This law is no different than making a law against wearing blue or red clothing within 1000 feet of a school, because some gangs use those as identifying colors. Well, not all gangs wear those colors, so you don't actually prevent gang members from being near a school, and many non-gang individuals wear red or blue items. If what you then see is the state arresting and prosecuting numerous non-gang members for this "crime", and treating them the same as they would actual criminals, you'd have to wonder if this was about something other than gangs.

This law only makes sense if you're one of those people who have been brainwashed into believing that guns are somehow "special", as the Brady Bunch is trying to argue in their brief in the McDonald case, and that treating them different under the law than other property is not only acceptable, but right. If the law is ridiculous on its face when applied to clothing or means of transportation or any other legally owned item, then it is equally ridiculous when applied to guns. The only reason to believe otherwise is to criminalize guns in general.

You seem to generally be under the mistaken assumption that these laws in some way actually prevent crime, just as with the laws requiring tracking of ammunition purchases. As was pointed out in that thread, such laws can have no effect whatsoever on criminal activity until after the crime has already occurred. They may make later apprehension a little easier (although the statistics on such laws show that they in fact don't even do this - in the several years that some states have required ballistic fingerprinting of all registered guns, not a single conviction has ever been obtained using that data), but they don't do anything at all to prevent the crime itself. All they do is burden law-abiding citizens who are now at risk of being prosecuted for what was not a crime at all before the law passed.

The problem is the idiotic idea that the government is our parent, and is justified in passing and enforcing laws to reduce crime by restricting risky but otherwise legal behavior. Both beliefs are wrong. Yes, your mother is right to punish you if she catches you doing something potentially dangerous when you're a child, because you're a child. But as an adult the government does not and should not have that same authority over you. Yes, guns can be used to commit crimes. But so can almost anything else you care to name. The government should have no special authority to regulate guns simply based on their potential for abuse. Their authority should only extend to prohibiting and punishing actual abuse, not trying to prophylactically prevent it. We have a right to participate in behaviors that carry some risk, and should only be restricted when we step over the line into abuse. That's what being an adult is about.

GaryV
12-20-2009, 11:12 AM
The speed limit comment brings up an interesting comparison. First, I don't think speed limits and the GFSZ law are comparable. The idea behind speed limits is that going faster than a certain speed presents a real, demonstrable risk that death or serious injury will occur, not just to the person speeding, but potentially to innocent bystanders as well. You could say the same about guns near schools as well. But there is a difference. In the case of speeding, the risk is one of an event occurring out of control of the driver. However, in the case of the GFSZ law, we're not talking about accidental harm, but purposeful harm. A speed limit makes some sense, because the very thing we are trying to prevent is an unintentional and uncontrolled event - one that the otherwise law-abiding nature of the driver has no ability to stop. But with guns the nature of the carrier is everything. He or she does have virtually complete control over whether the gun would be involved in a shooting or not. If the law was against reckless or irresponsible handling of a gun, it would be on par with a speed limit. But the vehicular analogy of the GFSZ is to ban the driving of cars.

However, in the case of California in particular, there's an interesting quirk of the law. While carrying a gun in a school zone, outside the legal exceptions, is automatically a crime, exceeding the posted speed limit is not. If you look up the relevant California law, you'll see that exceeding the posted speed limit is only prima facie evidence of a violation of the law. The law is simply that you must remain within a speed range that is safe for the conditions. Exceeding the posted speed limit is therefore a good indication that you are breaking the law, but is not automatically illegal. If you go to court and convince the judge that, given the conditions at the time, your speed was not unsafe, you can prevail in court, because exceeding the posted limit is not in itself illegal. I've actually known a few people who have bothered to try this and succeed.

So the GFSZ law, at least in California, fails to equate to a speed limit in two respects: first, it is more unreasonably preemptive, preventing a perfectly safe and otherwise legal activity instead of only reckless or dangerous behavior, and making the activity an automatic crime, instead of allowing for evidence of the safe nature of the activity in a specific case as a defense. I would consider a GFSZ law with the same character as the speed limit law in California as reasonable. As it exists now it is ridiculous.

Cokebottle
12-20-2009, 11:43 AM
The "Sensitive Zone" will survive on things like court houses, jails, prisons, government bodies, secure areas of airports.

All those areas have restricted access, metal detectors and if a bad person breeches the security, armed security to protect the people inside the sensitive zones.

Right now all the school zone 1000 foot ban ensures is that if a school shooting happens, no one who can come in and stop the shooting will be within 1000 feet.
Also don't forget "persecutability"

Since there is no effective way to enforce compliance with 626.9, the law merely serves one purpose... to add yet another charge to the warrant in the event of an incident.
In that respect, it is no different from "hate crime" legislation.

nick
12-20-2009, 11:49 AM
Why is it that on this site, everyone seems to think any gun regulation is unreasonable? If I went over to a hotrod forum, would everyone there be complaining that the 65mph speed limit is "arbitrary"? Griping about the science of it?

I bet there's some meat packing plant employee who's mad that X rats per day falling into the meat grinder is OK but X+ 1 is banned by the FDA. He's pulling his hair out that it's an arbitrary number.

Look at yourselves!

Well, that's because they are unreasonable, and, as History often shows, the reasoning behind passing them is far from the officially announced one. This is where you start calling me a conspiracy theorist, by the way, instead of a historian.

65MPH, and many other speed limits, were passed at the time of different cars and different roads. They made sense at the time, for a change, but the cars of the past couple of decades aren't the same, and neither are the roads. However, I don't see the studies behind the current speed limits revised anytime soon, for they've acquired a new significance - they've become a source of revenue to the local governments. I'd like to see you deny it.

From your post, I can infer that you're one of those people who generally assume that a law/regulation/etc. was passed with the stated goal in mind, by reasonable people with the best interest of their constituents in mind, until proven otherwise. As such, it's likely that your opinions will normally diverge from those of the majority on this forum, including mine, and the only way that can change is if one of the sides changes its fundamental outlook, which isn't likely to happen. Well, it may happen to you, actually.

The reason why it isn't likely to happen to me (I can't speak for the others here, but I think it might apply to quite a few) is that I have worked with politicians, I do try to reason things out from multiple sides, and, most importantly, because I study History. Studying events far enough removed from today has the benefit of not having the emotional bias studying contemporary events would bring, as well as having the sources which are still closed for contemporary events, be it via classifying them, or because they're still too important to the living people possessing them to make them public.

One of the things I've learnt from History is that when a law is passed that doesn't seem to make sense for the stated reason for passing it, it's usually because that stated reason wasn't the one behind passing this law to begin with. Another thing is that the best interest of their constituents/subjects/etc. isn't normally in the minds of the politicians at the phase our country is in right now, and that's been the case for quite some time. In fact, one of the few times this best interest is seriously considered by politicians is at the founding of a country. Precisely because this was considered at the founding of this country we now have all these often-inconvenient rights. And I'd take the opinion on them by someone who had the interests of his countrymen in mind at the founding of the country over that of the generally slimy self-serving hypocritical kind of today.

Of course, thanks to the first kind you have the right to trust the slimy self-serving hypocritical kind of contemporary politicians and ascribe noble causes to them. I also hope that you'll be able to keep doing that for your entire life, since it'd mean the slimy kind didn't succeed in turning this country into the third-world cesspool that even people who believe in their government officials' good intentions can't ignore.

nick
12-20-2009, 11:57 AM
The speed limit comment brings up an interesting comparison. First, I don't think speed limits and the GFSZ law are comparable. The idea behind speed limits is that going faster than a certain speed presents a real, demonstrable risk that death or serious injury will occur, not just to the person speeding, but potentially to innocent bystanders as well. You could say the same about guns near schools as well. But there is a difference. In the case of speeding, the risk is one of an event occurring out of control of the driver. However, in the case of the GFSZ law, we're not talking about accidental harm, but purposeful harm. A speed limit makes some sense, because the very thing we are trying to prevent is an unintentional and uncontrolled event - one that the otherwise law-abiding nature of the driver has no ability to stop. But with guns the nature of the carrier is everything. He or she does have virtually complete control over whether the gun would be involved in a shooting or not. If the law was against reckless or irresponsible handling of a gun, it would be on par with a speed limit. But the vehicular analogy of the GFSZ is to ban the driving of cars.

However, in the case of California in particular, there's an interesting quirk of the law. While carrying a gun in a school zone, outside the legal exceptions, is automatically a crime, exceeding the posted speed limit is not. If you look up the relevant California law, you'll see that exceeding the posted speed limit is only prima facie evidence of a violation of the law. The law is simply that you must remain within a speed range that is safe for the conditions. Exceeding the posted speed limit is therefore a good indication that you are breaking the law, but is not automatically illegal. If you go to court and convince the judge that, given the conditions at the time, your speed was not unsafe, you can prevail in court, because exceeding the posted limit is not in itself illegal. I've actually known a few people who have bothered to try this and succeed.

So the GFSZ law, at least in California, fails to equate to a speed limit in two respects: first, it is more unreasonably preemptive, preventing a perfectly safe and otherwise legal activity instead of only reckless or dangerous behavior, and making the activity an automatic crime, instead of allowing for evidence of the safe nature of the activity in a specific case as a defense. I would consider a GFSZ law with the same character as the speed limit law in California as reasonable. As it exists now it is ridiculous.

Funny that you mention the Basic Speed Law here. Very good post, by the way.

I argued and won my speeding ticket based on just that. I was surprised myself, for I know several people whose cases were just as valid, and who lost. Of course, that's the danger of judicial discretion.

I'd like to add that one of the differences between GFSZ law and the Basic Speed Law is that the BSL was codified way, way before the GFSZ law, and it reflects the difference between what the legislature could get away with then and now.

If the legislature tried to make going over the speed limit automatically illegal regardless of the circumstances today, they would succeed. We've been accustomed to that being the case most of the time, and so wouldn't think much of it. We're used to being heavily regulated with no real recourse by now.

Pont
12-20-2009, 12:09 PM
You are over generalizing and unfairly throwing everyone into the same pot. Many on this site believe that some gun regulation is reasonable. For example, most likely believe that guns should not be in the hands of people convicted for violent felonies.

Where many of us differ from you is in regard to which regulations are reasonable or unreasonable, and why.

It's not that all regulations are unreasonable. But the ones that are unreasonable tend to have some pretty obvious markers. The anti-gun forces have stated their strategy publicly - make gun ownership as cumbersome and expensive as possible to reduce the number of gun owners in California, reducing the pro-gun constituency, and eventually allowing anti-gun laws to go unopposed. Remember the Chris Rock joke "if you want to end gun violence, make bullets $5000 each"? Yeah, they're taking that to heart.

Telltale markers of unreasonable laws:

1) They exempt police officers. Cops are civilians. Cops, in general, have been shown to have no better firearm handling safety than average law-abiding civilians. If a law must exempt police officers in order to be politically viable, it is not reasonable. The not-unsafe handgun roster is a perfect example of this. Why should taxpayer dollars be buying unsafe handguns for our police officers? If magazine disconnect safeties and loaded chamber indicators actually worked, wouldn't they save the state soooooo much money by preventing negligent discharges by officers and the associated lawsuits?

1b) They hold average citizens to a higher standard than police officers.

2) They needlessly redefine common use terms like "private property" and "school zone". This is, unfortunately, not restricted to gun laws these days. Copyright is similar.

3) They are unenforceable against actual criminals.

Cokebottle
12-20-2009, 12:20 PM
The not-unsafe handgun roster is a perfect example of this. Why should taxpayer dollars be buying unsafe handguns for our police officers?
This is a particular bug in my butt.
Not the LCI and mag interlock, but the drop test.
A cop is far more likely to become involved in a struggle where the gun is likely to be impacted... particularly the commonly failed "pocket gun" .380s often carried on the ankle.
A non-LEO without a CCW is unlikely to ever be involved in a struggle when he is carrying.

mblat
12-20-2009, 4:19 PM
Why is it that on this site, everyone seems to think any gun regulation is unreasonable?
Well, I wonder... may be because most of them are?

If I went over to a hotrod forum, would everyone there be complaining that the 65mph speed limit is "arbitrary"? Griping about the science of it?
And they would be absolutely correct. There is no more scientific reason behind 65mph limit, as it was behind 55 mph or any other number one can think of.


I bet there's some meat packing plant employee who's mad that X rats per day falling into the meat grinder is OK but X+ 1 is banned by the FDA. He's pulling his hair out that it's an arbitrary number.

Rat in meat can be a health hazard. 1000 zone is the health hazard for kids in the school. See the point?

Look at yourselves!
Really.....

Cokebottle
12-20-2009, 4:37 PM
Rat in meat can be a health hazard.
Actually, if you look at the FDA specs for contaminants, most of the regulations are specified with a reason being "cosmetics" (similar term), including bug parts and rodent hair.
Most products are cooked to the point that there are few health risks from contamination, but you don't want to bite into a cooked potato bug in your Cadbury egg.