Does 626.9 only apply to handguns?

[SteveH]

Reading the Penal code last night I was unclear on the firearm withen 1000' of school issue. It said handguns in a locked container were fine. What about non concealable firearms?

Is a rifle or shotgun in the passengers compartment okay in a school zone?

[ke6guj]

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).

(c)Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:

(1)Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.

(2)When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.

This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.

[GrizzlyGuy]

626.9 is N/A for non-concealable firearms, but they are covered by the federal GFSZ law. See here.

[Mayhem]

If I'm not mistaken It's all firearms.

[SteveH]

626.9 is N/A for non-concealable firearms, but they are covered by the federal GFSZ law. See here.

Local cops usually dont enforce federal laws. BUt Just so i understand. There is no state prohibition on having a rifle or shotgun in your car in a school zone?

[Cokebottle]

If I'm not mistaken It's all firearms.

626.9, in concert with the federal GFSZ, yes.

[cmth]

The fed GFSZ is unconstitutional. Give U.S. v. Lopez a read sometime. I double dog dare a federal prosecutor to try to make a charge stick.

[Librarian]

The fed GFSZ is unconstitutional. Give U.S. v. Lopez a read sometime. I double dog dare a federal prosecutor to try to make a charge stick.

The Federal GFSZ was re-enacted because of US v Lopez.

I don't think the new version is any more constitutional than the old, but a federal prosecutor shouldn't have much problem; barring something interesting coming out of McDonald, fighting the Fed GFSZ may have to run back through SCOTUS.

[cmth]

I know that it was re-enacted, but if you read the case, it's clear that the law is still unconstitutional because Congress is exceeding their authority here. They do not have the constitutional power to restrict the movement of firearms in an intrastate manner. Unless every school becomes federal property, they can't even ban guns from school grounds, though most states have their own laws restricting that anyway.

[bigtoe416]

I know that it was re-enacted, but if you read the case, it's clear that the law is still unconstitutional because Congress is exceeding their authority here. They do not have the constitutional power to restrict the movement of firearms in an intrastate manner. Unless every school becomes federal property, they can't even ban guns from school grounds, though most states have their own laws restricting that anyway.

Spot on here. There's little chance a federal court wouldn't throw out any case related to the federal GFSZ stuff. Lopez's ruling is pretty clear about how unconstitutional the law is. Article 1, section 8 of the constitution doesn't grant congress the power to regulate guns in school zones, nor can any power granted to congress be (mis)construed to allow such laws.

[Librarian]

I know that it was re-enacted, but if you read the case, it's clear that the law is still unconstitutional because Congress is exceeding their authority here. They do not have the constitutional power to restrict the movement of firearms in an intrastate manner. Unless every school becomes federal property, they can't even ban guns from school grounds, though most states have their own laws restricting that anyway.

Spot on here. There's little chance a federal court wouldn't throw out any case related to the federal GFSZ stuff. Lopez's ruling is pretty clear about how unconstitutional the law is. Article 1, section 8 of the constitution doesn't grant congress the power to regulate guns in school zones, nor can any power granted to congress be (mis)construed to allow such laws.

I'm in general agreement with both of you, but the unconstitutionality of it all very likely will not be a bar to a prosecutor bringing a case, which was the first position. The ultimate success of such a prosecution is not certain.

That being said, in fact enforcement of the Fed GFSZ doesn't seem to have many instances, so far as I've heard.

[GuyW]

I don't think the new version is any more constitutional than the old, but a federal prosecutor shouldn't have much problem; barring something interesting coming out of McDonald, fighting the Fed GFSZ may have to run back through SCOTUS.

This is NOT the case to role back Commerce Clause violations...

.

[Mayhem]

The fed GFSZ is unconstitutional. Give U.S. v. Lopez a read sometime. I double dog dare a federal prosecutor to try to make a charge stick.

This is California, It's not about making anything stick. It's about throwing mud and punishing you by putting you in jail, Making you spend a boat load of cash defending yourself in court, jumping threw hoops to get your property back. then spending years picking up the pieces. Even if you win you loose, all for the sake of some over zealous DA in the chance he can make crappy case law.

For the most part the justice system has devolved in a way so that the establishment (government) can terrorize law abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

[nobody_special]

(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).
(c)Subdivision (b) does not apply to the possession of a firearm under any of the following circumstances:
(1)Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.
(2)When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle.
This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.

Note the terms in bold. I've always read this as prohibiting possession of all firearms including long guns. The final clause suggests that one may transport a non-concealable firearm near a school, but transport and possess have different meanings. The fact that (b) references "firearm" is important, as the final clause makes it clear that "firearm" includes long guns for the purposes of this PC.

[Theseus]

626.9 does regulate possession of all firearms within 1000 feet of a school. What 626.9(c) does is state that longarms or other non-concealable firearms are legal within a school zone provided that it is otherwise being legally transported according to state law.

As for what "transported" means. . . I might argue that since a motor home is not a residence because it can be moved at any time, as per the Anderson case, we have enough argument that a rifle in a gun rack in your vehicle is always being transported. There is a danger though since "transport" is not defined in 626.9, nor the distinction that is made in 12025/12026 between carried/transported the DA might be able to get a friendly judge to get them to rule it means whatever they want it to mean.

The FGFSZ is likely unconstitutional, but you have to look at the wording of the new version. The new version requires the firearm to be in a commerce interaction. Attempt to sell a gun within 1000' of a school zone without being otherwise exempt from the GFSZ and the Fed might have some teeth.

IANAL, I just pretend to be one in my head.