PDA

View Full Version : More proof that 626.9 PC (GFSZ act) is an absurd failure.


Window_Seat
05-14-2010, 9:23 PM
I looked/searched in this & in the off topic forum. Since it proves 626.9 as being a miserable failure, I figured I'd post it here, but will support it's move to OT if necessary.

Three Teens Shot Near Antioch High School (http://www.ktvu.com/news/23560677/detail.html)

But... but... guns aren't allowed within 1000 feet of a school zone, so gosh...:rolleyes:

Erik.

DarthSean
05-14-2010, 9:34 PM
Antioch police went door to door with guns drawn looking for suspects involved in the gunfight.
Do they mean searching inside houses?:TFH:

N6ATF
05-14-2010, 11:02 PM
The law is an absolute success as designed. Criminals in government gave criminals not in government a FREE KILLING (ALL VICTIMS DISARMED!) ZONE.

Scratch705
05-14-2010, 11:08 PM
well if someone care to take this up to the CA SC?

in United States v Lopez, the SC knocked down the federal version of GFSZ. but then again, it was only b/c they ruled that it was up to the states to determine the gun free zones for state level activities.

duldej
05-14-2010, 11:26 PM
you can't fight city hall (w/o codes of civil procedure)....

it's ccp section 262.6, i think, where and if you're fighting city hall either the controller or the coroner (or you) discharges the police chief or sheriff respectively.
i'm only referring to the numbers.

Librarian
05-15-2010, 9:24 AM
In 1994, apparently no one asked the question "How will you know if this law worked?"

For example: suppose I have a problem. I have a nice lawn, and every morning some dog comes by and leaves a present on the grass.

If I put up a fence, my measurement of success is whether or not there is dog poo on my lawn; the less frequently I get out the shovel, the more successful my prevention effort would be.

That kind of thinking seems to be a bit 'practical' for the legislature. But it's a good analogy for what we should demand from them:

How much poo (problem, crime) is there now? How do you know?
How will the fence (law) function to reduce the amount of poo?
Is the fence you propose cost effective compared to the poo-problem?
How will you know if the fence is doing its job?
The answers to the questions would be the Poo Postulates for each bill.

REH
05-15-2010, 9:36 AM
What politician would introduce a bill repealing 626.9 PC because it doesn't work? What judge would do the same? We are stuck with silly feel good laws that only affect law abiding citizens.

Mstrty
05-15-2010, 9:42 AM
Sounds like we need a new law and make it a crime to commit a crime. That might work.
:rolleyes:

OleCuss
05-15-2010, 9:48 AM
I'm all for repeal of 626.9 as I believe it to be an unwarranted restriction on our right to self-defense and ultimately counterproductive.

However, one must acknowledge that there is some benefit to the code. If one finds a gangbanger on campus or near to it carrying a firearm you can add violation of 626.9 to any other charges you may (or may not) have available.

I'd be kinda curious as to how many people have been successfully charged on a GFSZ violation and what their demographics are.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very opposed to the statute as very bad law.

Window_Seat
05-15-2010, 10:21 AM
In 1994, apparently no one asked the question "How will you know if this law worked?"

For example: suppose I have a problem. I have a nice lawn, and every morning some dog comes by and leaves a present on the grass.

If I put up a fence POO FREE ZONE sign , my measurement of success is whether or not there is dog poo on my lawn; the less frequently I get out the shovel, the more successful my prevention effort would be.

That kind of thinking seems to be a bit 'practical' for the legislature. But it's a good analogy for what we should demand from them:

How much poo (problem, crime) is there now? How do you know?
How will the fence POO FREE ZONE (law) function to reduce the amount of poo?
Is the fence POO FREE ZONE sign you propose cost effective compared to the poo-problem?
How will you know if the fence POO FREE ZONE sign is doing its job?
The answers to the questions would be the Poo Postulates for each bill.

Very interesting (well though out) analogy. However, notice the suggested corrections.;)

...If one finds a gangbanger on campus or near to it carrying a firearm you can add violation of 626.9 to any other charges you may (or may not) have available.
...

Don't get me wrong, I'm still very opposed to the statute as very bad law.

This (I believe) was to be the original intention, and it was (BON) for good intentions, however, that GB getting a 626.9 is like a parent sending h/er kid to h/er room for a time out, and leaving the X-BOX, WE (sic), Cable TV, etc. in the room, and giving h/er an iPod to keep h/er occupied during the time out.

The GB doesn't care because it's hardly a blip on his radar screen, so who cares. These imaginary shields are laughed at by thugs, even when they are sitting in jail with time to plan their next crime.

Home invasion suspects have been announcing themselves as LEOs executing a search warrant. It's (I believe) a misdemeanor to impersonate LE, so BFD to them.

Erik.

GrizzlyGuy
05-15-2010, 10:25 AM
However, one must acknowledge that there is some benefit to the code. If one finds a gangbanger on campus or near to it carrying a firearm you can add violation of 626.9 to any other charges you may (or may not) have available.

The law already provides for that, whether or not the gangbanger is in a school zone. See 12021.5 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12021.5.html):

Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm
on his or her person, or in a vehicle, during the commission or
attempted commission of any street gang crimes described in
subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 186.22, shall, upon conviction of
the felony or attempted felony, be punished by an additional term of
imprisonment in the state prison for one, two, or three years in the
court's discretion....


Also 12023 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12023.html) for criminals in general (most criminals carry loaded):

(a) Every person who carries a loaded firearm with the
intent to commit a felony is guilty of armed criminal action.
(b) Armed criminal action is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison.

383green
05-15-2010, 1:25 PM
Laws which criminalize the exercise of Constitutionally-protected natural rights by otherwise upstanding people are unacceptable, even if said laws prevent a poonami.

N6ATF
05-15-2010, 8:31 PM
What politician would introduce a bill repealing 626.9 PC because it doesn't work? What judge would do the same? We are stuck with silly feel good laws that only affect law abiding citizens.

Why would they? It works perfectly; it disarms victims for their criminal brethren to have absolute job safety.

yellowfin
05-15-2010, 8:54 PM
It does even more to its intended design in making gun ownership an impractical expensive hobby outcast from areas inhabited by 60-70% of the population. It isn't about Gun Free Zones, it's about Legal Gun Owner Free Zones, segregation reinvented.

1*mike
05-15-2010, 9:03 PM
Why would they? It works perfectly; it disarms victims for their criminal brethren to have absolute job safety.

job safety for whom. Police don't make law. Job safety for Ca legistature? Not saying the law is good but if your intent was to put the blame on LE. Think again.

383green
05-15-2010, 9:07 PM
job safety for whom. Police don't make law. Job safety for Ca legistature? Not saying the law is good but if your intent was to put the blame on LE. Think again.

I believe he was referring to job safety for criminals.

1*mike
05-15-2010, 9:13 PM
I believe he was referring to job safety for criminals.

Then I spoke too soon. I'm sorry!

N6ATF
05-16-2010, 12:17 AM
I believe he was referring to job safety for criminals.

Indeed. But too many criminals hide behind badges, printing their oaths and the Constitutions on toilet paper, so wise men beware them, more than those without.