Gun Free School Zone

[CalCop]

So, how does the GFSZ law make any sense at all in this scenario: Your precinct is across the street from an elementary school. When you get off duty, you put on your civies and head to your POV. When you get to your car, you are shot by a gang member who's brother you arrested earlier. He was waiting for you by your car, just outside the parking lot fence. You can't return fire because you are not wearing your gun on your hip.....because if you were, as soon as you drove from the parking lot, you would be violating the GFSZ law. Why are CCW holders exempt from the GFSZ law but not cops? What kind of sense does this make?

[Che762x39]

So, how does the GFSZ law make any sense at all in this scenario: Your precinct is across the street from an elementary school. When you get off duty, you put on your civies and head to your POV. When you get to your car, you are shot by a gang member who's brother you arrested earlier. He was waiting for you by your car, just outside the parking lot fence. You can't return fire because you are not wearing your gun on your hip.....because if you were, as soon as you drove from the parking lot, you would be violating the GFSZ law. Why are CCW holders exempt from the GFSZ law but not cops? What kind of sense does this make?

You are not a cop are you?

[fullrearview]

So, how does the GFSZ law make any sense at all in this scenario: Your precinct is across the street from an elementary school. When you get off duty, you put on your civies and head to your POV. When you get to your car, you are shot by a gang member who's brother you arrested earlier. He was waiting for you by your car, just outside the parking lot fence. You can't return fire because you are not wearing your gun on your hip.....because if you were, as soon as you drove from the parking lot, you would be violating the GFSZ law. Why are CCW holders exempt from the GFSZ law but not cops? What kind of sense does this make?

[CaptMike]

We are exempt.

[Samuelx]

Wow, all credibility gone with one flush... some things now start to make more sense... another one makes the list...

[CalCop]

The only exemptions to the Federal GFSZ (18 USC 922q) are:
LEOs in “official capacity”
“Qualified” state license holders
Private property not part of school

Please tell me why I am wrong that we are not exempt....I really want to believe we are, but all of the study I have done says we are not exempt.

[CalCop]

We are exempt.

I wish that too. Do you have anything to go with that?

[CalCop]

Look to the right of the picture on this link:http//www.SheepdogAcademy.com

From November 2011 "Understanding HR218 LEOSA Rights and Responsibilities" by Sheepdog Academy: "State laws regarding firearms possession at elementary schools vary widely. As far as LEOSA is concerned, do NOT carry at a public school in a state that prohibits such carry."

18 USC 922q: "It is unlawful for any individual to possess a gun within 1,000’ of a public, private, or parochial K-12 school."
The proposed LEOSA 2009 amendment – H.R. 3752 would have expressly exempted qualified active/retired LEOs from the federal ban, but the Senate version which omitted that language was adopted instead.

If ya'll have a more accurate, credible, or believable interpretation, please share.

[Heiko]

626.9(l) exempts peace officers. Note that the part about while on official duties only applies to out of state peace officers as it is written in the disjunctive from the previous part.

" (l) This section does not apply to a duly appointed peace officer
as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of
Part 2, a full-time paid peace officer of another state or the
federal government who is carrying out official duties while in
California, any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in
making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she is actually
engaged in assisting the officer, a member of the military forces of
this state or of the United States who is engaged in the performance
of his or her duties, a person holding a valid license to carry the
firearm pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of
Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6, or an armored vehicle guard, engaged
in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision
(e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code."

[Bodei]

Any cops here work in a "precinct"?

[CalCop]

Heiko,
I see what you are saying. Because the qualifier of "while carrying out duties" is listed after the other kinds of cops, but not CA cops....it appears we are safe there. However, what about the federal GFSZ?

[Bodei]

The intent of the GFSZ is to keep folks with guns that have no real reason to have them near a school away from schools. It does not trump the 2nd amendment IMO. Not sure if this is tested by any courts yet. The DC handgun decision is kind of similar. Just because you live near a school, doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.

[CalCop]

The intent of the GFSZ is to keep folks with guns that have no real reason to have them near a school away from schools. It does not trump the 2nd amendment IMO. Not sure if this is tested by any courts yet. The DC handgun decision is kind of similar. Just because you live near a school, doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.

Private citizens are exempt from GFSZ while at home in their own house.

I was disturbed that my Sgt and the sheepdog academy are both under the impression we are not exempt while off duty, according to the federal GFSZ. I just want to be clear whether or not we can carry our duty or off duty weapon in a school zone, according to federal law.

[Heiko]

Heiko,
I see what you are saying. Because the qualifier of "while carrying out duties" is listed after the other kinds of cops, but not CA cops....it appears we are safe there. However, what about the federal GFSZ?

I have not researched this issue but at 12:25 am I will suggest that 18 USC 922(q)(4) may allow states to preempt federal law so in the case of California, 626.9(l) may override the federal GFSZ.

"(4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection. "

Another theory would be that the "by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity" may be liberally interpreted to include off duty since it does not state it in terms of "in the performance of his or her duty" or "while on official business".

As I stated, I haven't researched this. These are just some late night theories.

[CalCop]

Heiko,
Your first theory is interesting. Second is too shaky.