Two days ago Governor Brown signed SB 707. SB 707 prohibits people who have been issued a license for a concealed weapon (CCW) from carrying on school grounds in CA. Previously a person with a CCW could carry on school grounds. The new law carries the same penalties for firearms as it does for ammunition. The new law does not apply to firearms or ammunition that is in a locked container within a motor vehicle or within the locked trunk of the vehicle at all times.
As part of the new prohibitions, this new law would exempt retired police officers. This tactic of exempting police and retired police from gun laws has been a tactic to either gain support, or avoid protest from the law enforcement community which is a strong lobby in CA.
In the 2002 case Silveira v. Lockyer decided at the 9th circuit a similar issue. In that case, there was a provision of the CA assault weapon ban that also exempted retired police officers. This was pre-Heller so certain constitutional questions that were raised are no longer controlling. As part of that opinion, the 9th circuit conducted a rational basis review of the retired police officer exemption provision.
The retired police officer exemption was severed from the rest of the statute accordingly. (oddly, this is the only instance that I am familiar with that rational basis review failed)
Later, in 2010, Jerry Brown as Attorney General opined similarly:
Two questions for debate:
[ol]
[li]Should people who possess a valid CCW be prohibited from carrying on school grounds?[/li][li]Should retired police officers be exempted from prohibitions on CCW on school grounds?[/li][/ol]
As to the first question I think if a person has been authorized by the state to carry a concealed weapon and gone through the requisite hurdles and background checks associated with that permit, then there should not be a general prohibition for all school grounds. I think this question turns on whether all school grounds are construed as “sensitive places” as mentioned in Heller. All of the rationale that would apply to bear in general would apply to a person outside their home whether on school grounds or not.
As to the second question, I think the holding in Silveira stands and this new law attempts to create a separate class of people treated differently and would run afoul of equal protection just as the same provision did in Silveira. Gun laws that exempt retired police are a violation of the constitution’s 14th amendment. The law should be struck down as unconstitutional.