ABC Reporter arrested after having CCW onto school premise

[RockyMtnTactical]

Simple, it is against the law, even if you have a concealed carry permit, to carry a firearm onto school property. Is there anyone in this universe that doesn`t know this?

Not the case in Utah. It's totally legal.

 

[JohnBT]

"My property extends to the inside edge of the sidewalk."

I'll bet you a good hamburger your deed dictates otherwise. Grab a copy of your survey and see where the surveyors placed the property line.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Inside edge of the sidewalk. I've had to sweep and shovel it since I bought it in 1980, but the city had to fix my water line that broke under it. They also had to fix the sewer pipe when it broke between the sidewalk and the curb (8 feet down, but you know what I mean.)

Not a doubt, it's the inside edge here in the city. We can't trim the trees between the sidewalk and the curb either. Well, we're not supposed to, but I used to do tree service work and I own a chainsaw even though I don't own any trees.

John

 

[TexasRifleman]

"According to Florida Statute 810.0975, which defines trespassing in “school safety zones”, a person is committing an unlawful act if he loiters in the school safety zone, but “does not have legitimate business in the school safety zone"

"The school safety zone is defined as 500 feet within a school grounds"

Standing on a sidewalk reporting the news is not legitimate now? LOL

The longer this goes the worse it gets, they should drop the charges now before it gets worse.

Every day the school cops here look less competent.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Florida law is very clear about where you are not allowed to carry your concealed weapon even if you have a license. Schools, federal buildings, hospitals, bars are off-limits if you are packing a gun, unless you are a law enforcement officer.

Mr. Miller should read the Florida Law again, because it doesn't say what he thinks it says.

 

[shield20]

Is the "school safety zone" (i.e 500ft) the "school facility" as is written in statute 790.06(12)?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Seeing as how the Florida law uses three seperate terms, I would suspect that "School Safety Zone", "School Property" and "School Facility" do not have the same meaning. My best guess is that they are nested. Facilities are on property that is inside a safety zone.

Any FL CCW instructors here?

 

[shield20]

Also this:

810.095 Trespass on school property with firearm or other weapon prohibited.--

(1) It is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, for a person who is trespassing upon school property to bring onto, or to possess on, such school property any weapon as defined in s. 790.001(13) or any firearm.

(2) As used in this section, "school property" means the grounds or facility of any kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, junior high school, secondary school, career center, or postsecondary school, whether public or nonpublic.

*****************

A ZONE is in a seperate statute, so it seems is NOT applicable here (there is NO provision for "firearm vs school ZONE"), so the post/quotes dealing with that issue ("...that damn gun") seems off-base.


810.0975 School safety zones; definition; trespass prohibited; penalty.--

(1) For the purposes of this section, the term "school safety zone" means in, on, or within 500 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary, middle, or high school or school board and used for elementary, middle, or high school education.
...
NO firearm code here.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Not a doubt, it's the inside edge here in the city. We can't trim the trees between the sidewalk and the curb either. Well, we're not supposed to, but I used to do tree service work and I own a chainsaw even though I don't own any trees.

Then I'd be on the phone to a lawyer. A government entity forcing you to maintain government property at your own expense, and under threat of prosecution and/or financial hardship should have a good attorney drooling.

Brad

 

[JohnBT]

"A government entity forcing you to maintain government property at your own expense, and under threat of prosecution and/or financial hardship should have a good attorney drooling."

You obviously don't know much about the law in this country. Every city I've ever lived in, or heard about, had similar laws/regs about the property owner being responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear.

You fight it, I'm not wasting my time or money. Or my lawyer's time.

John

 

[Diggers]

Well it seems that the news station is standing behind him on this, as they should if they want to be taken at all seriously.

That, and the fact that all of this was caught on video makes me think that this case will not get too far.

I'm thinking that the DA will look the case AND the video, see that its a PR stick in the eye, and drop the charges.

I just don't see a DA wanting to stand in court with a video that shows that the charges brought against some one are totally bogus.

That, however, will not excuse the behavior of the police officers there that made the arrest. I do hope that is also pursued, its important for everyone to know they need to behave correctly...or else.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Spot77]

Right or wrong, the very least that can be said is that the officers seemed to act somewhat professional and courteous.

Here in MD, one would likely be arrested after the first, "Move now!" order.


Can't wait to see the follow up.

 

[Jeff F]

I don't know about Miami but in California sidewalks in front of schools are school property.

 

[Regolith]

Spot....so its OK for them to violate your rights if they're courteous as they do so? I don't really define the violation of rights as "courteous," regardless of how "politely" the officer acted as he nonchalantly ignored the First and Second Amendments.

 

[Elza]

One of Many:My property extends to the inside edge of the sidewalk.

Brad Johnson: I'll bet you a good hamburger your deed dictates otherwise. Grab a copy of your survey and see where the surveyors placed the property line.

According to the survey sheet and the flags the surveyor put up mine starts 6 inches inside the sidewalk. If you measure from the property line (between the neighbor’s property and mine) to the sidewalk it is 150 feet/ 6 inches. My property is 150 x 150 feet according to the deed.

 

[Jeff F]

Heres a link
http://www.local10.com/news/14411684/detail.html

 

[Nix]

im so shocked... to be in support of a media member

 

[devilc]

Doesn't 18USC provide gun safety zones for schools?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

If the city, state or county "owned" my sidewalk....they wouldn't need an easement to allow others the "right of way" to use it. The whole idea of an easement (at least the "right of way" type easement) is to restrict my property deed such that...while I do own the land, others have a right to use it. In fact, where I am now, I own out to the moddle of the road in front of my house....but easements say the government controls the use of the first 60 feet. Clearly it is somewhat limited ownership....not unlike the designated wetlands elsewhere on my property....but it clearly falls under what I "own". I never said I controled my sidewalk or that I could do whatever I wanted there, just that it is "my property" just like the sidewalk in front of a school is "school property".

All well and good, but you are extrapolating from YOUR personal situation to assume that the same applies where this school is located. And it might ... but it also might not. I have a friend in another state whose property extends to the middle of the street, and the street is an "easement" over his land. That, in my 40 years of experience, is an exception. It is the ONLY time I have ever encountered that arrangement. And, as I said ... my friend lives in another state. Might there be such a situation in my own state? Sure, there might ... but I have yet to see one.

Remember, we have 50 states to deal with, and each has its own laws. And laws change. My friend's house is over 60 years old and the subdivision is older. I can almost guarantee that it would not and COULD not be done that way today. (Yeah -- we had to research the zoning and building laws, because he was doing an addition, and the front of the addition was damned near IN the street. Perfectly legal as it turned out. Which is why they don't do subdivisions with streets crossing private property any more.)

 

[Winchester 73]

In Miami-Dade County,Florida the sidewalk in front of the school is public,not school property.
What does it matter what California law is?Its immaterial to this incident

 

[Librarian]

So, let's summarize what we actually know.

The reporter was carrying a gun.

He had a permit.

He began on a sidewalk outside the school; he was asked to go across the street by some police agency; he went across the street.

After making a phone call, he crossed the street back to the school.

The video appears to show he was on the street, not back on the sidewalk.

He was asked to go back across the street.

He refused.

He was arrested.

After arrest, the reporter's gun was discovered.

It is illegal for most folks to bring a gun onto school grounds and into school facilities.

The remaining issues are about whether the arrest was good -
(1) was the place the reporter was standing when arrested PUBLIC or SCHOOL property?
(2) wherever he was, was the reporter doing something for which any individual might be subject to arrest when in that place? The answer to this seems to be somewhat dependent on the answer to the former.

I'm going to wait until someone skilled in the interpretation of Florida law and properly informed of the circumstances of the location pops up and answers (1). I'm guessing that will be a lawyer, next week, in an article on the tv station's Local News page.

It's a slightly interesting case.

 

[Brad Johnson]

You obviously don't know much about the law in this country. Every city I've ever lived in, or heard about, had similar laws/regs about the property owner being responsible for keeping the sidewalks clear.

I am a licensed, full-time real estate agent and have been for most of a decade. I think I might know a teeny bit about real estate issues like property lines and such.

Regs, restrictions, etc. about keeping the sidewalk or alley clear are completely removed from the issue at hand - who actually owns the sidewalk.

In many (read: most) parts of the country your warranty deed will establish a right-of-way or easement for public use (i.e. the sidewalk and alley). You own it, but the city mandates that the public have access to it, having ordinances or municipal regulations to that effect. Keeping it clear and presentable will be part of said regulations.

However...

In the case above the owner's property line does not extend to the sidewalk (as his survey clearly shows). The city is forcing him, under threat of *insert nastiness here* to keep that area clean even though it is not legally his property. I figure there are any number of attorneys who would be salivating at the chance to take on a city for that.

According to the survey sheet and the flags the surveyor put up mine starts 6 inches inside the sidewalk. If you measure from the property line (between the neighbor’s property and mine) to the sidewalk it is 150 feet/ 6 inches. My property is 150 x 150 feet according to the deed.

So the city is forcing you, under threat of penalty, to expend your personal time and effor to keep city property clean and maintained? I'd be reaching for the phone to call an attorney. At the very least there needs to be some professional clarification on not only who is responsible for what, but also why.

Brad

 

[Spot77]

Spot....so its OK for them to violate your rights if they're courteous as they do so? I don't really define the violation of rights as "courteous," regardless of how "politely" the officer acted as he nonchalantly ignored the First and Second Amendments.

Where did I say ANY of that?????

You're combining two separate issues, and I never condoned any violation of rights.

 

[ilcylic]

Heck, according my the deed on the place I live now, the city owns not just the sidewalk, but the first 7 feet of my front yard.

Will the city fine me if I don't keep that area free of weeds? Yes. Do I think that's a load of bull? Yes. Do I think a lawyer would touch this fight with an 11 foot pole unless I had a couple million up front to foght it? No. And why not? Because property taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, and gross receipts taxes all demonstrate that according to the legal system of this country, making slaves of the pawns is perfectly legitimate.

None of which is relevant to this particular case.

Do we have a phone number of the station? Fair is fair, we got Rebecca Aguilar canned with our condemnation; we should call and give our support to this fellow.

 

[WayneConrad]

Doesn't 18USC provide gun safety zones for schools?

If it's the act I'm thinking of, then yes, but CCW holders are exempt. Plus, that act may be unconstitional (the first version of it was struck down in a landmark case*; it was reenacted with some words added, and the second version has not been ruled upon).

*SCOTUS ruled that the original law stretched the commerce clause too far. Wow.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Almost looks to me like this is just another case of it being illegal to film/photograph/video tape police in action. How many time in just the last few months or so have we seen a case where some one was threatened or physically confronted or even arrested for the act of vidoe taping a cop in the line of duty, usually caught in the act of a questionable action. A smuch as I dislike your basic reporter/journalist type the 1st amendment is almost as important as the 2nd andsome may think the founding fathers got it right with the order they are in.