• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Long guns allowed in school zones?

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

marshaul wrote:
CA_Libertarian wrote:
I don't see anything indicating the wording from 626.9 does not apply to long guns. It says "a firearm." Logically, that means any/all firearms. The exemption in (c)(2) does specifically name concealable firearms.
Read (c)(2) again and tell me what it says.

Remember the distinction between "section", "subdivision", and "paragraph".

Note that (c)(2) does not exempt "possession" of long guns in school zones, thus not contradicting (b). It merely allows for transportation if otherwise in accordance with state law. Thus one may be prosecuted under 626.9 for possession of a long gun in a school zone if one is either A: not traveling anywhere or B: in violation of any other code. The law doesn't seem to contradict itself if interpreted this way, and this analysis is the only way I can reconcile (c)(2) with (b).
Well what do you make of this "other firearm capable of being concealed on the person,"?

It is my understanding that this means rifles and shotguns, same as in the CA AGO's website.
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,335
Location
California, USA
imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:
Well what do you make of this "other firearm capable of being concealed on the person,"?

"Other..." in CA means a firearm with a barrel of 16" or less.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=11001-12000&file=12000-12003

12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
"revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that
has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be
interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol,"
"revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."
(b) As used in this title, "firearm" means any device, designed to
be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a
projectile by the force of any explosion or other form of combustion.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,748
Location
Oregon
imported post

Yeah, cite and then post pictures of you carrying a rifle on your person without us being able to tell it's there.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,193
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

California Penal Code Section 12001

(a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
"revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
than 16 inches in length
.

Edit: Darn cato beat me to it in an edit by 5 minutes. :p
 

BSProof

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
45
Location
, ,
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Not in California.
What about long guns? CA statutes don't prohibit having a long gun in a school zone...

Anybody got an extra $250,000 and want their name enshrined in the law books?
I'm curious, where does that 250k figure come from? Defense? A well-framed question in the form of a "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment" would be a better alternative. Let the court declare the legality of it. That should maybe run, at the most, $2500. And this is IF an appeal is necessary for review of the decision. Otherwise it should be no more than maybe $1000.

AND it would be BEFORE trouble, as opposed to defending a criminal charge. I.e. No arrest, and/or possible jail time risks involved. Just a thought.
 

AyatollahGondola

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
328
Location
Sacramento, California, USA
imported post

A conversation with a deputy at the substation today about the rifle/shotgun issue:

His position was that we don't live in an area where it's accepted to display a gun, because there would be people calling about it and a response from them. I don't think he was interested in putting someone down for it, but saw it akin to passing gas in a crowd. Not socially acceptable.

He recommended I keep it covered and unloaded while transporting. I didn't get into the issue of me walking to the gun range. Not yet anyway

I also asked about the federal 1000 foot law, and he said we enforce the california penal code here, not federal law.
 
Top