PDA

View Full Version : Does a locked seabag / duffelbag constitute a 'locked container'?


rayra
11-19-2008, 11:28 AM
I've occasionally 'made do' when transporting a handgun on trips out of town by placing said handgun, in a zippered gun rug / pounch, inside my seabag and placing a lock on the seabag. And the handgun usually has a trigger lock on it.

I've looked and haven't found any specific language describing the requirements for a 'container'. Nothing about security requirements, that it be hard-sided, or any standards for how resistant to penetration it has to be.

So, anyone know of the actual legal standard, if any?

bohoki
11-19-2008, 11:36 AM
hmm seems like locked gun rugs are locked containers and they could be easily defeated with scissors

i wonder where the like is i'm sure you just cant put a padlock on a brown paper sack who knows where the line is?

maybe if it requires the use of a tool to open and a bullet is a tool (haa ha ha)

if you mean secured in one of these
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e366/bohoki/DCP_6698.jpg
make sure there is plenty of smelly laundry on top thought

Ironchef
11-19-2008, 11:40 AM
A sleeping bag with a small luggage lock on the zippers is a legal, locked container.

There is NO language defining the "container" as far as I know or anyone on this board as I asked this question before.

Can't use a paper bag with a lock through it, that's for sure..but other things that "contain" the gun are ok. I think the reasonable-ness of "container" is if a jury would think the container prevented you from getting easy access to the gun avoiding the lock. A see through plastic hello kitty child's backpack with locked zippers would probably work. Anyway, the "accessibility" and the jury thoughts are mine..and not safe to bet on..just my opinions.

rayra
11-19-2008, 11:41 AM
I'm specifically asking to find out 'where the line is', so I know when I'm crossing over it.
I want to know if a locked duffel is legally sufficient.
I know that I can saw the bag open in next to no time with my serrated pocket knife. I'm wondering if some govt weenie has used such a thing to rule out what I'm doing as a legal container.

Liberty1
11-19-2008, 11:43 AM
So, anyone know of the actual legal standard, if any?

12026.1. (a) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12020-12040) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or
Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from
transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the
following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

Liberty1
11-19-2008, 11:45 AM
I'm specifically asking to find out 'where the line is', so I know when I'm crossing over it.
I want to know if a locked duffel is legally sufficient.
I know that I can saw the bag open in next to no time with my serrated pocket knife. I'm wondering if some govt weenie has used such a thing to rule out what I'm doing as a legal container.

I don't know of any case law on this particular area. And trigger locks don't count for anything when dealing with 12025.

I think a duffle bag with the usual folding top is not "fully enclosed" sadly. If your gun rug is locked then putting it in a duffle is no crime provided you fulfill the rest of the exemptions requirements. Additional exemptions to 12025 are found in 12026.2a and 12027 PC (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=12001-13000&file=12020-12040)

Splinter
11-19-2008, 11:54 AM
Just make sure its "fully enclosed." A backpack with a lock through the zippers is gtg, so if the bag closes you should be gtg.

CSACANNONEER
11-19-2008, 11:59 AM
Define "secure" and you will have your answer. A paperbag with a pad lock keeping it closed and locked could be considered a secure locked container.

Glock22Fan
11-19-2008, 12:08 PM
The word "secure" is liable, if it ever came to that, to depend upon whether a jury considered it to be secure, as there is no further definition in the laws.

Therefore it all depends upon what a reasonable person would consider to be "secure."

My guess FWIW is that a paper bag, or anything else which can be opened by a person of reasonable strength without the key (or combo) using their bare hands only, would not be considered secure.

Therefore a canvas or nylon container, sufficiently strong enough that the average person could not tear it open with just bare hands, should be secure (if locked).

glockman19
11-19-2008, 12:22 PM
I transport individual handguns either in a locking case or locking bag. Allen makes a like of locking handgun bags that I use.

rayra
11-19-2008, 5:08 PM
well I just double-checked and with my seabag properly pegged and locked I can still worm my hand into the bag via one of the quadrants. So that doesn't seem very secure. It might pass a casual inspection, And I certainly do put the stinky laundry on top ;)
When I have my range bag, I'll padlock the zippered side compartment shut, and if on a range trip everything goes in a couple locked rifle hard cases. So those are more clear-cut.
But when on a road trip out of town, with just street clothes or business attire, I've been relying on the locked seabag. That doesn't seem so wise now.
The issue is further complicated by only one of our vehicles having a trunk and I rarely drive it. I'm usuall in a single cab pickup or a Tahoe, and thus have no trunk whatsoever. Thus making a 'locked container' even more important, re a handgun. Guess I'll need to get some zippered gun rugs that I can actually lock shut. None of mine have dual zippers of a ring for locking purposes.

I seem to recall once reading a topic about someone using a retail business bank deposit pound with locking closure as a 'locked container'. Don't recall the summation on that, though.
Really just looking for something I can cram in the bottom of my luggage and remain wihtin the letter of the law with.

fairfaxjim
11-19-2008, 5:12 PM
Any of the gun rugs with a lock loop should be fine. For what you want to do, the el-cheapo gun show specials with a luggage combo lock would be the ticket. That's what I have used for years. I have several and set all the combo locks to the same #'s.

Max-the-Silent
11-19-2008, 5:19 PM
I'm specifically asking to find out 'where the line is', so I know when I'm crossing over it.
I want to know if a locked duffel is legally sufficient.
I know that I can saw the bag open in next to no time with my serrated pocket knife. I'm wondering if some govt weenie has used such a thing to rule out what I'm doing as a legal container.


If I encountered an individual with a locked duffel, it would be good enough for me - but that's just me.

I can name a few guys that would get their panties bunched up over it, but I don't believe that absent some actual criminal behavior on your part that it would go very far.

Liberty1
11-19-2008, 5:43 PM
Bagmaster (http://www.bagmaster.com/) has a locking pistol "belt pack" which I recommend for a poor man's CCW option via the exemption in 12026.1a. It has two belt loops on the back and three separate compartments inside with a zippered pocket out side where a spare loaded mag could be kept in compliance with 12031a.

You could throw it in your sea bag too if that is all you wanted to do with it.

grammaton76
11-19-2008, 5:51 PM
Bagmaster (http://www.bagmaster.com/) has a locking pistol "belt pack" which I recommend for a poor man's CCW option via the exemption in 12026.1a. It has two belt loops on the back and three separate compartments inside with a zippered pocket out side where a spare loaded mag could be kept in compliance with 12031a.

You could throw it in your sea bag too if that is all you wanted to do with it.

Blackhawk's got a very neat variant of that as well, specifically designed to pose as a camera bag. I should have one of those in not-too-long.

510dat
11-19-2008, 5:59 PM
The word "secure" is liable, if it ever came to that, to depend upon whether a jury considered it to be secure, as there is no further definition in the laws.

Without much logic or thought put into this idea, I suggest that if you're willing to check it as baggage on an airplane, and it's lockable, it's probably secure.

Anything you check has to be able to tolerate a lot of abuse, shifting, and turned over multiple times without spilling it's contents all over the place.

So Rayra's sea bag that he can get his hand into probably isn't secure enough, while a lockable backpack or zippered dufflebag probably is fine.

Liberty1
11-19-2008, 6:10 PM
Blackhawk's got a very neat variant of that as well, specifically designed to pose as a camera bag. I should have one of those in not-too-long.

linky? I couldn't find it at their site.

grammaton76
11-19-2008, 6:17 PM
linky? I couldn't find it at their site.

http://www.blackhawk.com//CatalogImages/18-781-IMG1.jpeg

These clever concealment pouches allow you to carry “hidden in plain sight”. Designed to mimic a camera or tourist pouch, each has a top zipper opening that can remain open or closed with your handgun hidden behind a hook-and-loop flap. A separate pocket sewn to the front of the pouch carries keys, cuffs, ID or change and is an ideal spot for a camera company patch or other “corporate camouflage”.

http://www.blackhawk.com/product/Belt-Pouch-Holster,781,32.htm

sb_pete
11-19-2008, 8:57 PM
I've always figured that "secure" meant that you couldn't just tear it open with your bare hands. Whether you could do it with your bear hands though is a matter of conjecture...;)


http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo251/sb_pete/1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg

lehn20
11-19-2008, 9:44 PM
Desanti has a dropleg version similar to the BHI waistpack posted above.

swhatb
11-19-2008, 10:54 PM
well I just double-checked and with my seabag properly pegged and locked I can still worm my hand into the bag via one of the quadrants. So that doesn't seem very secure. It might pass a casual inspection, And I certainly do put the stinky laundry on top ;)
When I have my range bag, I'll padlock the zippered side compartment shut, and if on a range trip everything goes in a couple locked rifle hard cases. So those are more clear-cut.
But when on a road trip out of town, with just street clothes or business attire, I've been relying on the locked seabag. That doesn't seem so wise now.
The issue is further complicated by only one of our vehicles having a trunk and I rarely drive it. I'm usuall in a single cab pickup or a Tahoe, and thus have no trunk whatsoever. Thus making a 'locked container' even more important, re a handgun. Guess I'll need to get some zippered gun rugs that I can actually lock shut. None of mine have dual zippers of a ring for locking purposes.

I seem to recall once reading a topic about someone using a retail business bank deposit pound with locking closure as a 'locked container'. Don't recall the summation on that, though.
Really just looking for something I can cram in the bottom of my luggage and remain wihtin the letter of the law with.

you might try one of these out, it works well.
http://www.desantisholster.com/n30.html

Librarian
11-19-2008, 11:21 PM
The "what is good enough" question is posed often enough that we ought to make up our own rule.

The problem is that "secure" is not defined anywhere, so let's set a minimum level of security that would be obviously too little. This, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on what any LEO might think is "right", but there's no guidance in law, so we're adrift on a sea of "common sense".

I propose the "ten-year-old" rule: any container which can be opened, entered or otherwise defeated
by an average ten year old boy,
without the key or the combination,
and without cutting or smashing tools,
is too weak to be even laughably called "secure".

I pick "ten" merely because it's a round number - nine or eleven would be just as good - but I picked a pre-adolescent to place reasonably well-known limits on strength and size and dexterity, but allow for considerable ingenuity. (50th Percentile for boys, 10 years -- weight: 72 lb; height: 54 inches)

I picked "boy" because of a stronger tendency for boys to take things apart than is usually shown by girls.

The advantage to creating our own bit of folklore is we don't have to be terribly accurate or terribly precise, and there would not be 'standards' with 'certifying authorities' (for example, as exist for safes).

Usage: "If you think it could be defeated by a bare-handed ten-year-old, you oughta buy something better."

GuyW
11-20-2008, 12:42 AM
I propose the "ten year old" rule: any container which can be opened, entered or otherwise defeated by an average ten year old boy, without the key or the combination, and without cutting or smashing tools, is too weak to be even laughably called "secure".

...Usage: "If you think it could be defeated by a bare-handed ten-year-old, you oughta buy something better."

Nah - the subject law isn't a safe-storage provison, its to keep the gun inaccessible to the possessor...a 21+ yo person...
.

redbull addict
12-21-2008, 10:13 PM
Ah, the search function works...I had this subject on my mind since I travel between 2 homes and bring a pistol with me.

However, let me pose one additional question. My pistol pouch by Hoyt is pretty thick and zippered with two nice hoops to put a lock through. I think you guys settled the issue on whether this is acceptable or not. I've also read other threads about transporting the handgun in the car and ammo. It seemed that from those threads as long as the pistol was not loaded, you could have a magazine loaded with ammo close by.

So based on that, I assume that if I had my handgun in this bag pictured below with the section zippered and secured with a lock. I could in theory have a loaded magazine in the adjacent pocket.

Would any of the officers on this board have an issue with this? It seems somewhat borderline to me.

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/Item/22/73/54/i227354sq01.jpg

Meplat
12-21-2008, 10:36 PM
And where does it say that?:rolleyes:

Nah - the subject law isn't a safe-storage provison, its to keep the gun inaccessible to the possessor...a 21+ yo person...
.

JDay
12-22-2008, 4:29 PM
I transport my handguns in $5 locking boxes I got at Big5.

johnny_22
12-22-2008, 6:03 PM
Sold at Staples and on-line. These bags are tough, and the lock is attached. You can order on-line bags that are keyed the same. Reduces the number of keys on your keychain.

falawful
12-22-2008, 6:17 PM
Arrrrr a sea-hag bag....

Some of de airlines waant yer containnnerrr to be designed for guns exclusively..

Not sayin' it be de law of the sea, but a regulation of the ship...

arrrr...

Annie Oakley
12-22-2008, 7:26 PM
Guys, I want to apologize in advance because this may seem to be an unlikely scenario, but my intent is to make this more of a mental exercise that to attempt to trip anyone up or create a no-win scenario.

Here's the scenario I am thinking about. I am a gunowner who loves to exercise and shoot for my health and for recreation. I decide to place my gun, ammunition, ear protection, and any other accessories that may be necessary into a backpack that locks the zippers and I walk 3 miles to the indoor range. On the route that I take, there is an elementary school, and I must pass within 1000' of the school. Is there any point in this scenario where I might be illegal ? And if a policeman was to stop me for any reason, could he arrest me for anything if he asked me if I had a gun and I told him or her the truth ?

Again, this is more of a mental exercise than an actual question, so please feel free to dissect this scenario in whatever fashion you feel is necessary.

oaklander
12-22-2008, 7:34 PM
Dillon's Plan B (http://www.dillonprecision.com/content/p/9/pid/23863/catid/14/Dillon__039_s___039_Plan_B__039__Day_Planner) "Day planner" seems to be a favorite of some Calgunners that I know.


http://www.dillonprecision.com/uimages//10252_m.jpg

Librarian
12-22-2008, 9:34 PM
Guys, I want to apologize in advance because this may seem to be an unlikely scenario, but my intent is to make this more of a mental exercise that to attempt to trip anyone up or create a no-win scenario.

Here's the scenario I am thinking about. I am a gunowner who loves to exercise and shoot for my health and for recreation. I decide to place my gun, ammunition, ear protection, and any other accessories that may be necessary into a backpack that locks the zippers and I walk 3 miles to the indoor range. On the route that I take, there is an elementary school, and I must pass within 1000' of the school.

(1) Is there any point in this scenario where I might be illegal ?

(2) And if a policeman was to stop me for any reason, could he arrest me for anything if he asked me if I had a gun and I told him or her the truth ?

Again, this is more of a mental exercise than an actual question, so please feel free to dissect this scenario in whatever fashion you feel is necessary.

(added the numbers)

(1) Not that I can see. If you're going to conceal the handgun, it has to be fully enclosed and locked - the backpack would do that. Personally, I'd either select a purpose-built pack or use an additional padded gun rug or such, but that's more for the possibility of dropping it.

A couple of my backpacks (they seem to accumulate over the years...) have internal zippers allowing access from one compartment to another - you'd want to be sure you did not lock one set of zippers on the outside but still have access to the compartment with the gun via a different set.

(2) sure - but I can't think of any charges that would stick, given the situation as described.

It would have to be a weird circumstance for a LEO to stop a citizen just walking along with a backpack. Police in any college town would be going nuts if that were common practice.

cgseanp1
12-23-2008, 12:23 PM
Wow, I'm glad I found this. I always thought that you just had to have the gun in the trunk and the bullets stored seperately from the gun. So the gun has to be in a locked container to take it anywhere? Or is this if you are taking the gun on an out of town trip like the OP mentioned?

Librarian
12-23-2008, 1:11 PM
Wow, I'm glad I found this. I always thought that you just had to have the gun in the trunk and the bullets stored seperately from the gun. So the gun has to be in a locked container to take it anywhere? Or is this if you are taking the gun on an out of town trip like the OP mentioned?

If you do not have CCW, and if you choose to conceal it at all (it is not required to conceal it, but that's the most common way to transport handguns) then you must follow the rule set out in PC 12026.1/.2 - unloaded in a fully enclosed, locked case. That applies anyplace outside your house or off your private property.

cgseanp1
12-23-2008, 2:00 PM
If you do not have CCW, and if you choose to conceal it at all (it is not required to conceal it, but that's the most common way to transport handguns) then you must follow the rule set out in PC 12026.2/.2 - unloaded in a fully enclosed, locked case. That applies anyplace outside your house or off your private property.

Thanks for the info!!!!!!

GuyW
12-27-2008, 1:20 PM
"Originally Posted by GuyW
Nah - the subject law isn't a safe-storage provison, its to keep the gun inaccessible to the possessor...a 21+ yo person..."

And where does it say that?:rolleyes:

Doesn't say it, it's merely inescapable logic. Disprove it...

WHO is prohibited from having a concealed gun in CA?

Practically - the person IN POSSESSION of the gun.

In CA, (18+ yo limited exception ignored) to be in legal possession, that is a person 21+ years old.

Since possession of a handgun BY a 10-yr old is ILLEGAL without written parental permission (unless the gun is loaned from parent) and accompanying adult chaperone, I dismiss that standard out of hand....

The better answer than my original quick response is someone with the physical characteristics of a 50th-percentile officer or above (ie, young male, good physical condition, optimized strength due to regular physical exercise work / work out).

Consider - how many officers may respond to a person with a concealed gun call?

So, the "locked" case has to be strong enuff to resist opening by strongest responding officer...
.

U2BassAce
12-27-2008, 2:48 PM
I'm specifically asking to find out 'where the line is', so I know when I'm crossing over it.
I want to know if a locked duffel is legally sufficient.
I know that I can saw the bag open in next to no time with my serrated pocket knife. I'm wondering if some govt weenie has used such a thing to rule out what I'm doing as a legal container.

Just make sure there is no ammo in the duffel bag. If it is the type that two zippers meet and can be locked. Or there is a D-Ring on one end to lock zipper to then you are good to go.

U2BassAce
12-27-2008, 2:53 PM
Guys, I want to apologize in advance because this may seem to be an unlikely scenario, but my intent is to make this more of a mental exercise that to attempt to trip anyone up or create a no-win scenario.

Here's the scenario I am thinking about. I am a gunowner who loves to exercise and shoot for my health and for recreation. I decide to place my gun, ammunition, ear protection, and any other accessories that may be necessary into a backpack that locks the zippers and I walk 3 miles to the indoor range. On the route that I take, there is an elementary school, and I must pass within 1000' of the school. Is there any point in this scenario where I might be illegal ? And if a policeman was to stop me for any reason, could he arrest me for anything if he asked me if I had a gun and I told him or her the truth ?

Again, this is more of a mental exercise than an actual question, so please feel free to dissect this scenario in whatever fashion you feel is necessary.


You are locking the ammo with the handgun. No good. Use a seperate locked gun rug for the handgun (unloaded and no ammo inside gun rug) inside your backpack. Then you are good to go.

artherd
12-27-2008, 8:32 PM
Ammo must be in a position ready for firing. People v Clark Amongst other things, ammo locked in the same case is not 'loaded'. Even ammo in the side saddle of a rifle is not 'loaded'.

Liberty1
12-27-2008, 8:48 PM
You are locking the ammo with the handgun. No good. Use a seperate locked gun rug for the handgun (unloaded and no ammo inside gun rug) inside your backpack. Then you are good to go.

:nono: What is loaded? (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=103660) :p

DDT
12-27-2008, 9:12 PM
You are locking the ammo with the handgun. No good. Use a seperate locked gun rug for the handgun (unloaded and no ammo inside gun rug) inside your backpack. Then you are good to go.

This is not actually correct. There is no provision I am aware of that ammo and weapon must be in separate locked containers. If there is please do cite.



The whole idea of carrying concealed in a locked container to avoid a 12025 violation is specious. 12026.2(a) lists the exemptions for concealed carry and 12026.2(b) is pretty plain when it states:

"(b) In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a), while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be unloaded, kept in a locked container, as defined in subdivision (d), and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances."

Is there any case law that essentially nullifies 12026.2(b)? I suppose it might be challenged based on "reasonably necessary" but unless the case law is pretty strong you still stand a pretty good chance of having to defend yourself in court.



That being said I really like the day planner and might make one.

Librarian
12-27-2008, 11:13 PM
Since possession of a handgun BY a 10-yr old is ILLEGAL without written parental permission and accompanying adult chaperone, I dismiss that standard out of hand....

Philistine! :)

My "10-year-old standard" did not imply that the child was the intended possessor - just that a container unable to defeat such a burglar was unworthy of consideration when considering 'secure'. It was a long way around of saying "Oh, for Pete's sake, people - use your heads! If you are unable to use your heads for more than parking a hat, try this silly notion."

The better answer than my original quick response is someone with the physical characteristics of a 50th-percentile officer or above (ie, young male, good physical condition, optimized strength due to regular physical exercise work / work out).

Consider - how many officers may respond to a person with a concealed gun call?

So, the "locked" case has to be strong enuff to resist opening by strongest responding officer...
.
And of course, you have PC and case law establishing such a standard, right? - Rhetorical - no, you don't, which is why these foolish discussions recur.

It makes just as much sense as the "10-year-old rule", though. It's just harder to guess what would meet the standard.

oaklander
03-19-2009, 3:04 PM
Since this discussion is relevant to ULCC - I'm bumping.

wildhawker
03-19-2009, 5:35 PM
Since this discussion is relevant to ULCC - I'm bumping.

You're the best :D

So, to :beatdeadhorse5:

Here are the posts by ChuckBooty and Librarian which spurred my line of thought, also quoted for reference. I would be much obliged if someone humored me and picked this apart :p

If it's in a locked box you can carry your firearm and full magazine in the same box...right next you you. As soon as you permanently fix that locked box to your vehicle, you have yourself an additional utility compartment. So maybe rig up some manner to "hang" the lock box on some type of hooks or bracket so that it can be readily removed from the vehicle without the use of a tool.

That argument has indeed been advanced. I have yet to see any case law that supports that such an attached box has been prosecuted that way.

Further, then, what's to say that a conversion of an area within a vehicle from a glove box/center console/utility compartment to a lockable safe (meeting DOJ Regulatory Gun Safe standards, for argument's sake, although the more lax 12026.1(c) should suffice) would be disallowed? The function and purpose of the area would be highly modified and materially changed so as to be distinctive from the original factory-intended construction, function and purpose; the area would no longer serve as a "utility or glove compartment" for the vehicle. If a fixed and locked safe were to be considered a "utility" compartment (note, the lack of "factory", "oem" or the like in (a)(1) leaves the aforementioned conversion open to interpretation), it would seem to bar use of any container for transporting firearms within a vehicle.

Such a scenario would seem to meet the requirements of 12026.1. (a)(1) & (c).

I wonder if a similar strategy could be employed here by means of automobile engineers as CGF was prepared to do for John Contos' U-15 case (using topologists).

Regulatory Gun Safe Standards

DOJ regulatory standards require a gun safe to meet either:

All of the following requirements:

1. Shall be able to fully contain firearms and provide for their secure storage;
2. Shall have a locking system consisting of at minimum a mechanical or electronic combination lock. The mechanical or electronic combination lock utilized by the safe shall have at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum three numbers, letters, or symbols. The lock shall be protected by a case-hardened (Rc 60+) drill-resistant steel plate, or drill-resistant material of equivalent strength;
3. Boltwork shall consist of a minimum of three steel locking bolts of at least ˝ inch thickness that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe, which are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock;
4. Shall be capable of repeated use. The exterior walls shall be constructed of a minimum 12-gauge thick steel for a single-walled safe, or the sum of the steel walls shall add up to at least .100 inches for safes with two walls. Doors shall be constructed of a minimum of two layers of 12-gauge steel, or one layer of 7-gauge steel compound construction;
5. Door hinges shall be protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include, but are not limited to: hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler’s lugs and active or inactive locking bolts.

or

All of the following requirements:

1. Is listed as an Underwriters Laboratories Residential Security Container;
2. Is able to fully contain firearms;
3. Provides for the secure storage of firearms.

grammaton76
03-19-2009, 5:42 PM
Ya know, I would be very interested to see a statutory definition of "utility compartment". I don't know what it is for sure.

But I do know that they'd have a VERY hard time trying to claim that an affixed soft case with a lock on it would be a utility compartment. It may be an attached pouch or something, but it's certainly no compartment.

DDT
03-19-2009, 7:21 PM
I would be fairly confident with any non-oem compartment. Things such as center consoles I would avoid. Of course mounting a single pistol safe inside the center console would be very convenient and perfectly legal since the safe is the locked container, you are not relying on the center console's locking system.

wildhawker
03-19-2009, 8:12 PM
Ya know, I would be very interested to see a statutory definition of "utility compartment". I don't know what it is for sure.

But I do know that they'd have a VERY hard time trying to claim that an affixed soft case with a lock on it would be a utility compartment. It may be an attached pouch or something, but it's certainly no compartment.

I hear you; the definition (or lack thereof) of the no-go compartments are key to this argument.

Unless a non-OEM lockable container (in any location and of any construction and function as long as it met 12026.1(c)) was an acceptable mode of transporting a concealable firearm, it would seem to implicate ANY locked container within a passenger compartment.

12026.1(a): The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.

To me, this implies that the vehicle's OEM "utility or glove compartment" is an unsuitable and by statute unlawful container in and of itself (whether lockable or not); however, by placing a separate and independently-locked container containing a firearm into the compartment, the utility or glove compartment itself no longer serves to secure the firearm and mitigates the prohibited condition. Note, the additional locked container ("locked vessel within a vessel") is not required if "locked in the vehicle's trunk".

Let's say I had a '57 Chevy and wanted the custom, pro-street look. I decided to chop up the numbers-matching trailer queen and shaved the interior the next weekend. The following weekend I had some remorse and constructed a custom dash front with an open face leading to a recess set into the dash frame. Note, this wouldn't be the "utility or glove compartment" as designed and constructed by the vehicle's manufacturer. If, then, one placed a locked container containing an unloaded firearm capable of being concealed into the recess, would they be guilty of carrying a concealed firearm under 12025?

If so, would it matter where the locked container was placed (and, especially then, if mounted or fixed) within the interior of the vehicle? If a "utility or glove compartment" is whatever the DA interprets your container to be (or not), does it not call into question the legality of transporting an unloaded concealable firearm within a locked container anywhere in the passenger compartment?

I would posit that the code is written to prohibit one from utilizing the "utility or glove compartment" as the sole and only method of securing a concealable firearm within a vehicle, and, by placing the unloaded firearm into a separately-locked container meeting 12026.1(c), one mitigates the "utility or glove compartment" restriction of 12026.1.a(1).


12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or
Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from
transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the
following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

wildhawker
03-19-2009, 8:16 PM
I would be fairly confident with any non-oem compartment. Things such as center consoles I would avoid. Of course mounting a single pistol safe inside the center console would be very convenient and perfectly legal since the safe is the locked container, you are not relying on the center console's locking system.

Exactly my point; as such, the console vault (https://www.consolevault.com/products/) would seem to be a perfectly legal means to transport an unloaded concealable firearm to a destination where ULCC comes into play...

wildhawker
03-19-2009, 8:37 PM
Now, if one were to use a small locked container rather than the "console vault" or similar it could be used within the vehicle and transferred into your briefcase/bag/purse without the issue of exposure discussed here (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2193120#post2193120).

Foghlai
03-20-2009, 2:56 PM
I am refering soley to the laws regarding the containers themselves.

What is considered locked under the penal code?
What exactly is the bare minimum for a "locked" container in the car?

Can the key be in the lock?
Can the combination already be entered?
Could you have a single button mechanism that pops the "lock"?

We can't carry in a locked glove compartment, but does this exclude us from building our own container in center or built into a door?


Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

wildhawker
03-20-2009, 3:03 PM
See

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=163061

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2193021#post2193021

Foghlai
03-20-2009, 3:35 PM
Hi Brandon,

Thanks for the links! I wasn't referring to carrying the container but still interesting.

I didn't see any comments on what "secure" means in the context of the code.

(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

Would a single button release be legal? Would two button combination be ok?

The whole code is pretty vague. = (

BillCA
03-20-2009, 3:59 PM
Hi Brandon,

Thanks for the links! I wasn't referring to carrying the container but still interesting.

I didn't see any comments on what "secure" means in the context of the code.
Lacking any qualifier, the courts use words in their normal and customary usage and import. Thus, "Secure" means...

2 a: free from danger b: free from risk of loss c: affording safety <a secure hideaway> d: trustworthy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trustworthy) , dependable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dependable) <a secure foundation>

While a secure container cannot be "free" of danger or loss unless it's made of unobtainium, we can see that "affording safety" is a reasonable definition. In totality, "secure" would men a low level of risk of theft and danger of use and affording safety.

(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device.

Would a single button release be legal? Would two button combination be ok?

The whole code is pretty vague.

It's only vague if you choose to make it so. The container is described and it must be locked. The types of acceptable locks are noted. Electronic locks are not acceptable unless they use a key, combination lock or similar.

A one-button release to open the box would not satisfy the court unless that button's ability to release was controlled by a key lock or combination lock.

Nothing in the statute, however, sets breaking strengths on the locks on the container or the container's resistance to breakage at the locking point.

Untamed1972
03-20-2009, 4:17 PM
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

Would a single button release be legal? Would two button combination be ok?

The whole code is pretty vague. = (

You're chosing to see it as vague because it's not telling you what you want to hear. If your house, your car, your garage, you safe deposit box, gun safe at home and so on and so forth are not secured with an easy "push one button with finger" locking mechanism and you would never think of securing those items with such a simple "locking mechanism" because you reasonably realize that it affords no security whatsoever then you have just demonstrated to a court that you understand the "reasonable meaning of a lock."

A single push button type thing requiring only a finger to open would more reasonable be considered a "latch".

I mean heck.....why I dont I just stick a gun in the side pocket of my cargo pants, but a little luggage lock from the 99cent store thru the button hole and claim my gun is a locked container? By your logic I could just claim the button/or velcro flap itself was a lock right?

Librarian
03-20-2009, 5:15 PM
Hi Brandon,

Thanks for the links! I wasn't referring to carrying the container but still interesting.

I didn't see any comments on what "secure" means in the context of the code.

(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.

Would a single button release be legal? Would two button combination be ok?

The whole code is pretty vague. = (

See post 22 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1711983&postcount=22) in this thread.

tankerman
03-20-2009, 5:17 PM
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww316/tankerman11/Noname.jpg
http://zuech.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/rayban31.jpg

What happened?

wildhawker
03-20-2009, 7:39 PM
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww316/tankerman11/Noname.jpg
http://zuech.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/rayban31.jpg

What happened?

:rofl2:

tyrist
03-20-2009, 8:21 PM
yes

tankerman
03-21-2009, 5:18 AM
Since this discussion is relevant to ULCC - I'm bumping.:confused::confused::confused:

wildhawker
03-21-2009, 9:42 AM
:confused::confused::confused:

I believe this thread is relevant to ULCC in these aspects (Oaklander?):

1) "locked container",
2) legal transport of ULCC firearm and magazines within a vehicle, and
3) (potentially) transfer of firearm between vehicle and ULCC vessel

bussda
03-21-2009, 6:47 PM
See post 22 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1711983&postcount=22) in this thread.

Quoting:

The "what is good enough" question is posed often enough that we ought to make up our own rule.

The problem is that "secure" is not defined anywhere, so let's set a minimum level of security that would be obviously too little. This, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on what any LEO might think is "right", but there's no guidance in law, so we're adrift on a sea of "common sense".

...

Usage: "If you think it could be defeated by a bare-handed ten-year-old, you oughta buy something better."

Your definition is not practical. Remembering the controversy that led to our current safe storage law and the "CA APPROVED GUN LOCK". The only safe container would be a 10 ga. steel box locked with a CA approved gun lock. (3 lb. gun and ammo protected by 20 lb. steel box.)

The first truly "safe" gun was thought to be the S&W lemon squeezer, until they saw 3 yr old pulling the trigger and having the hammer fall on an empty chamber.

wildhawker
03-21-2009, 8:26 PM
Quoting:

Your definition is not practical. Remembering the controversy that led to our current safe storage law and the "CA APPROVED GUN LOCK". The only safe container would be a 10 ga. steel box locked with a CA approved gun lock. (3 lb. gun and ammo protected by 20 lb. steel box.)

The first truly "safe" gun was thought to be the S&W lemon squeezer, until they saw 3 yr old pulling the trigger and having the hammer fall on an empty chamber.

What does practical have anything to do with the statutory definition of "locked container"? I find not one mention of "practical" in the PC.

Even the DOJ's regulatory gun safe standards do not require 10ga. construction.


Regulatory Gun Safe Standards

DOJ regulatory standards require a gun safe to meet either:

All of the following requirements:

1. Shall be able to fully contain firearms and provide for their secure storage;
2. Shall have a locking system consisting of at minimum a mechanical or electronic combination lock. The mechanical or electronic combination lock utilized by the safe shall have at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum three numbers, letters, or symbols. The lock shall be protected by a case-hardened (Rc 60+) drill-resistant steel plate, or drill-resistant material of equivalent strength;
3. Boltwork shall consist of a minimum of three steel locking bolts of at least ˝ inch thickness that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe, which are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock;
4. Shall be capable of repeated use. The exterior walls shall be constructed of a minimum 12-gauge thick steel for a single-walled safe, or the sum of the steel walls shall add up to at least .100 inches for safes with two walls. Doors shall be constructed of a minimum of two layers of 12-gauge steel, or one layer of 7-gauge steel compound construction;
5. Door hinges shall be protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include, but are not limited to: hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler’s lugs and active or inactive locking bolts.

or

All of the following requirements:

1. Is listed as an Underwriters Laboratories Residential Security Container;
2. Is able to fully contain firearms;
3. Provides for the secure storage of firearms.

Librarian
03-21-2009, 10:37 PM
Quoting:

Your definition is not practical. Remembering the controversy that led to our current safe storage law and the "CA APPROVED GUN LOCK". The only safe container would be a 10 ga. steel box locked with a CA approved gun lock. (3 lb. gun and ammo protected by 20 lb. steel box.)

The first truly "safe" gun was thought to be the S&W lemon squeezer, until they saw 3 yr old pulling the trigger and having the hammer fall on an empty chamber.

I never said it was 'practical'. I said it was an obvious floor for 'unsecure' - one should pick something better than what a bare-handed ten-year-old could defeat.

C'mon, people! You have an intuitive grasp of what you, yourself, feel is 'secure'. You know what your friends or family would laugh at, if you tried to tell them that a thing was 'secure'.

The law DOES NOT SAY. Don't suggest something you know is insecure or you know would be laughed at. If you want to pick on something that seems actually secure to you, or something you think would make a LEO happy to see, go for it.

The 'ten year old' rule:
confusing people who refuse to use common sense since December, 2008.

bussda
03-22-2009, 12:19 AM
What does practical have anything to do with the statutory definition of "locked container"? I find not one mention of "practical" in the PC.

Even the DOJ's regulatory gun safe standards do not require 10ga. construction.

Yes, Practical is not in the PC.

My point was that approaching the issue by using a 10 yr old boy standard is not "practical" as in realistic. That is really a subjective approach, which means when you try to draw up the rules, any thing can be said and there will much arguing and FUD. It is whatever we can get by with today, no common sense.

Recalling history. If you remember the writing of the law that gave us the current requirement to have a gun lock when you buy a gun. Then remember gun locks were literally being given away. And most of them, when hit with a hammer, would pop open. The 10 yr old kid standard literally gave us the current law.

And yes, DOJ standards are 12ga. minimum, so the box will be 18 lbs instead. :)

bussda
03-22-2009, 12:35 AM
I never said it was 'practical'. I said it was an obvious floor for 'unsecure' - one should pick something better than what a bare-handed ten-year-old could defeat.

C'mon, people! You have an intuitive grasp of what you, yourself, feel is 'secure'. You know what your friends or family would laugh at, if you tried to tell them that a thing was 'secure'.

The law DOES NOT SAY. Don't suggest something you know is insecure or you know would be laughed at. If you want to pick on something that seems actually secure to you, or something you think would make a LEO happy to see, go for it.

The 'ten year old' rule:
confusing people who refuse to use common sense since December, 2008.

Having spent too much time discovering how little protection locks are, nothing seems secure to me. But on the other thread locked container (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2202337&postcount=134) I do throw out what would be a minimum and why. I just lose track of what I said to which thread.

And in the interest of equal sharing, please see the post 63 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2203791&postcount=63) on why I think the 10 yr old rule is not "practical". It is more a matter of subjective approach then being objective.

technique
03-22-2009, 12:39 AM
Just make sure its "fully enclosed." A backpack with a lock through the zippers is gtg, so if the bag closes you should be gtg.

I always toss a handgun in a backpack and lock the zippers together. My AR pistol even fits in a Backpack.:thumbsup:

BillCA
03-22-2009, 3:21 AM
I go back to what I consider the original intent and purpose of the law.

IMO, the law for transporting a handgun in a vehicle was to prevent "ready access" of the gun by the driver/occupant of the vehicle. The law specifically prohibits the use of the "glove or utility box" as a storage location. There could be several reasons for this, including the fact that some glove boxes do not have locks or can often be easily pried open.

12026.2(d) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.[1]

The statute does not declare the materials of which such a container can be made. Only that it fully encloses the firearm, can be locked and is "secure".

Obviously "secure container" is a question-begging term. "Secure from what?" Or "how secure?" Given a moderately well equipped workshop, very little could be considered "secure". But in practical terms, secure means to provide a measure of safety. Since we are talking about a case for transporting a firearm, this implies a portable container.

Additionally, 12026.2 legal definition of locked container is used by 12021 and 12035 and 12036 (the latter two regarding safe storage from children in the home).

In 12035(c)(2) as well as 12036(e)(2) the same language is used with regards to securing a firearm;
(2) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.

Thus, whatever locking container is used should also meet the criteria that a reasonable person would believe [I] to be secure.

It would be reasonable to say that any hard-sided locked container that did not permit easy access to the firearm would satisfy the criteria of a "locked container". Currently acceptable hard containers for transporting a firearm include aluminum, polymer, and plastic. Some soft, padded containers are also acceptable when made out of canvas, nylon, leather or PVC coated material as long as they can be locked.[2]

It's certain that some of these are not "secure" if a person attacks the case with a common utility knife or box-cutter. Indeed, some of the zippered soft cases could be defeated by pulling the zippers apart, either by hand or using pliers for a better grip. Even a common large blade screwdriver may be capable of defeating the locking mechanism of aluminum hard cases.[3]

Yet, most are acceptable as transportation cases for the purposes of 12026.1 and 12026.2. This is because the purpose of the law is to ensure that firearms are not "readily accessible" to the occupants of a vehicle.

It would then appear that if you have to pause to remove or disable the lock before accessing the firearm and you cannot access it otherwise, the case is deemed "secure".


[1] 12036.1 identically defines "locked container", but covers the glove and utility box prohibition separately in (a)(1) using identical language. 12036.2(d) is used only for brevity.
[2] These cases will satisfy requirements for transporting a firearm home from an FFL or gunsmith when equipped with some kind of lock.
[3] Obviously a paper sack, fiberboard carton, a t-shirt material sack and even a stretchy Tyvek envelope would not pass muster since they can be opened by hand.

Doheny
04-01-2009, 9:50 PM
Clever!

JoGusto
11-26-2009, 4:31 AM
I go back to what I consider the original intent and purpose of the law.

IMO, the law for transporting a handgun in a vehicle was to prevent "ready access" of the gun by the driver/occupant of the vehicle.

<...snip...>

Yet, most are acceptable as transportation cases for the purposes of 12026.1 and 12026.2. This is because the purpose of the law is to ensure that firearms are not "readily accessible" to the occupants of a vehicle.

...

This all makes a good deal of sense, and is well-argued. There can be no doubt about that (IMO!). However, as with all arm-chair lawyering by non-attorneys, we (note I say "we") can all too easily fall into the trap we have constructed for ourselves: it makes so much sense, it must be true!

No disrespect to BillCA, but unfortunately, as other posters have pointed out, much of what the statute intends is going to be subject to the interpretation of the police officer who pulls you over, and the trial courts, where each individual judge, absent guidance from the legislative stated intent (did you find one in your research?) or the body of case law (did you find any during your research?), will interpret the law idiosyncratically. I hate to put it so bluntly, but each judge is a human being, and subject to the same foibles as the rest of us. Some of them will make what seem to be very unreasonable decisions. The same goes for juries, the triers of fact. Your case could be one of the "outliers" that make people stand up and scream "WTF!?"

Unless someone versed in law (and with credentials, not just enthusiasm) can weigh in on this topic with some authoritative case law or legislative intent, I'd be very careful about assuming too much based on this analysis. Your, my, and BillCA's idea of what constitutes a secure container will be reinterpreted by that individual police officer who pulls you over and starts rummaging through the back of your SUV or pickup. Your best bet is to be "as secure as possible." It's up to you individually to decide to what extent you will go to attempt to satisfy the requirements of this statute. Sadly, we are no closer to having an authoritative answer to this question than when the thread started almost a year ago.

I know I will be flamed by people who say I am taking an unreasonably cynical position. To them I say just look up the saga of Phillip Dominguez vs. the LAPD, and then tell me everything is going to be ok with "your" interpretation of the statute, vs. what the LAPD et al will actually DO... :(

I was at a gun show recently at the Santa Clara Fairgrounds. There was an outfit showing off their locked container solution for locked unloaded carry inside a vehicle. The gizmo was sweet, with a popup holster, a button combo lock, separate container for the ammo (not that that's necessary unless you are a gangbanger ;)). It appeared to meet all the requirements for a secure, locked container. Yet, the vendor confessed to one of the showgoers that an LAPD LEO commented to him that if he saw one of those during a traffic stop, he'd arrest the guy and drag him in, regardless of the legality, just because it represents too much attitude for him to let it go by unchallenged.

pTa
11-26-2009, 7:16 AM
or TSA
a zippered gun rug placed inside a padlocked duffle bag is good enough for those geniuses

Librarian
11-26-2009, 10:45 AM
I was at a gun show recently at the Santa Clara Fairgrounds. There was an outfit showing off their locked container solution for locked unloaded carry inside a vehicle. The gizmo was sweet, with a popup holster, a button combo lock, separate container for the ammo (not that that's necessary unless you are a gangbanger ;)). It appeared to meet all the requirements for a secure, locked container. Yet, the vendor confessed to one of the showgoers that an LAPD LEO commented to him that if he saw one of those during a traffic stop, he'd arrest the guy and drag him in, regardless of the legality, just because it represents too much attitude for him to let it go by unchallenged.
Well, I believe we have said that poorly trained LEOs might arrest people mistakenly. That one most likely would get thrown out, with a decent lawyer, but there would still be the expense and inconvenience and (hopefully short) time locked up.

I've often wondered if a settlement of such a case could include a highly publicized re-training of the officer(s) involved.

'Contempt of cop' can turn a routine interaction into an arrest, but a box giving 'attitude'? That's pretty far out there.

Liberty1
11-26-2009, 11:27 AM
I was at a gun show recently at the Santa Clara Fairgrounds. There was an outfit showing off their locked container solution for locked unloaded carry inside a vehicle. The gizmo was sweet, with a popup holster, a button combo lock, separate container for the ammo (not that that's necessary unless you are a gangbanger ;)). It appeared to meet all the requirements for a secure, locked container. Yet, the vendor confessed to one of the showgoers that an LAPD LEO commented to him that if he saw one of those during a traffic stop, he'd arrest the guy and drag him in, regardless of the legality, just because it represents too much attitude for him to let it go by unchallenged.

That is the Titan Gun Vault. I've got several for various places.

ul0C_Q2VBO8

Digital_Boy
11-27-2009, 9:49 AM
(added the numbers)

(1) Not that I can see. If you're going to conceal the handgun, it has to be fully enclosed and locked - the backpack would do that. Personally, I'd either select a purpose-built pack or use an additional padded gun rug or such, but that's more for the possibility of dropping it.

A couple of my backpacks (they seem to accumulate over the years...) have internal zippers allowing access from one compartment to another - you'd want to be sure you did not lock one set of zippers on the outside but still have access to the compartment with the gun via a different set.

(2) sure - but I can't think of any charges that would stick, given the situation as described.

It would have to be a weird circumstance for a LEO to stop a citizen just walking along with a backpack. Police in any college town would be going nuts if that were common practice.

Now, what if she's taking a long arm to the range to practice with? Say a Ruger 10/22, or an AR or some other OLL?

CSACANNONEER
11-27-2009, 10:01 AM
Now, what if she's taking a long arm to the range to practice with? Say a Ruger 10/22, or an AR or some other OLL?

Perfectly legal. It does not need to be locked or even in a case unless, it's a registered RAW or 50BMG RIFLE or in a gun free school zone. Of course, LEOs might stop and question her but, if they are knowledgable, she will be able to fininsh her jorney to the range. If they are ignorant, their supervisiors should be requested and she should be prepared to politely educate them about the law.

ScottB
11-27-2009, 10:04 AM
I'm a little confused as to why this is a big deal for most folks.

By the code posted, am I to infer that a car trunk is itself a locking container and if handguns are so transported, no other container is needed? A lot of these posts seem to presume that simply being locked in the trunk is not enough. Or is the real point of thread about trying to find sneaky ways to CC in the car?

For more conventional purposes, I have a car with a trunk and a truck with a shell on it. I have always just loaded my guns in the back (trunk or bed) with no other containers except their normal no-lock cases. Are you saying that I am transporting illegally?

DarkHorse
11-27-2009, 11:33 AM
I'm a little confused as to why this is a big deal for most folks.

By the code posted, am I to infer that a car trunk is itself a locking container and if handguns are so transported, no other container is needed? A lot of these posts seem to presume that simply being locked in the trunk is not enough. Or is the real point of thread about trying to find sneaky ways to CC in the car?

For more conventional purposes, I have a car with a trunk and a truck with a shell on it. I have always just loaded my guns in the back (trunk or bed) with no other containers except their normal no-lock cases. Are you saying that I am transporting illegally?

Some people have trucks without shells, or SUVs without trunks. Some people ride motorcycles or bicycles. Threads like this are for people like us.

Also, as some have pointed out, many important terms are not statutorily defined, and are thus open to interpretation. Folks are trying to get a better feeling of what these terms mean, and thus protect themselves from overzealous LEO's and DA's. While it may be legal to toss an unloaded handgun into your trunk, w/o any case of any kind, how do you think an Oakland police officer would act if he opened your trunk (for whatever reason - help you change a flat, look at a busted taillight, etc.) and saw a handgun. When you find yourself cuffed face-down on the curb, you'll have plenty of time to think about how you could have avoided this situation by spending less than $30 to have an innocuous, secured container in your trunk. Cheap insurance.

Another concern would be the "utility compartment." I have a Secure-It handgun box, that would by any defionition be a secured container. It would be nice to bolt it to the floor of my Jeep, but that could turn a legal container into an illegal one. Threads like this help bring odd situations to light, and can prevent folks from getting into trouble. Therefore, they are a big deal.

Don't take this as a personal attack, but if you feel the topic of a given thread is not a "big deal," use the "Back" button.

CSACANNONEER
11-27-2009, 12:28 PM
I'm a little confused as to why this is a big deal for most folks.

By the code posted, am I to infer that a car trunk is itself a locking container and if handguns are so transported, no other container is needed? A lot of these posts seem to presume that simply being locked in the trunk is not enough. Or is the real point of thread about trying to find sneaky ways to CC in the car?

For more conventional purposes, I have a car with a trunk and a truck with a shell on it. I have always just loaded my guns in the back (trunk or bed) with no other containers except their normal no-lock cases. Are you saying that I am transporting illegally?

That is because some people do not know the law. They only know what some moron has told them is the law. The actual written law is VERY clear. Read it and decide for yourself.

Please remember that there are other laws which may come into play when transporting firearms though. If you are legally transporting a NFA firearm (which is not legal to possess in CA) through Ca., you might need a separate locked case to do so. I am not sure since, this doesn't apply to anything I've done or am planning to do.

Seesm
11-27-2009, 1:22 PM
AHhh Raya so what happened with him?

WHy did he get banned?

He has been gone quite a long while now... Pm anyone who knows?

B Strong
11-27-2009, 5:23 PM
I'd say yes - a "locked container" can be soft sided.

ScottB
11-27-2009, 7:09 PM
But can it be simply and exclusively be a car trunk or locked truck bed with a shell.

Despite some windy snarkiness, that simple question has not been answered.

Librarian
11-27-2009, 7:19 PM
I'm a little confused as to why this is a big deal for most folks.

By the code posted, am I to infer that a car trunk is itself a locking container and if handguns are so transported, no other container is needed?

Yes.

A lot of these posts seem to presume that simply being locked in the trunk is not enough. Or is the real point of thread about trying to find sneaky ways to CC in the car?

A more important consideration is transporting a handgun to or from a vehicle - in public, such an unloaded handgun would still need to be in a locked case. If you use your trunk for the only locked case, you might have a problem in that circumstance.

For more conventional purposes, I have a car with a trunk and a truck with a shell on it. I have always just loaded my guns in the back (trunk or bed) with no other containers except their normal no-lock cases. Are you saying that I am transporting illegally?

Handguns? If the trunk and shell lock, not illegal.

ScottB
11-27-2009, 7:23 PM
Thank you, Librarian. I will drive to range much more relaxed tomorrow and thereafter.

Meplat
11-27-2009, 8:10 PM
I've occasionally 'made do' when transporting a handgun on trips out of town by placing said handgun, in a zippered gun rug / pounch, inside my seabag and placing a lock on the seabag. And the handgun usually has a trigger lock on it.

I've looked and haven't found any specific language describing the requirements for a 'container'. Nothing about security requirements, that it be hard-sided, or any standards for how resistant to penetration it has to be.

So, anyone know of the actual legal standard, if any?

A sea bag should do it.

MudCamper
07-16-2013, 9:38 AM
The "what is good enough" question is posed often enough that we ought to make up our own rule.

The problem is that "secure" is not defined anywhere, so let's set a minimum level of security that would be obviously too little. This, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on what any LEO might think is "right", but there's no guidance in law, so we're adrift on a sea of "common sense".

I propose the "ten-year-old" rule: any container which can be opened, entered or otherwise defeated by an average ten year old boy, without the key or the combination, and without cutting or smashing tools, is too weak to be even laughably called "secure".

I pick "ten" merely because it's a round number - nine or eleven would be just as good - but I picked a pre-adolescent to place reasonably well-known limits on strength and size and dexterity, but allow for considerable ingenuity. (50th Percentile for boys, 10 years -- weight: 72 lb; height: 54 inches)

I picked "boy" because of a stronger tendency for boys to take things apart than is usually shown by girls.

The advantage to creating our own bit of folklore is we don't have to be terribly accurate or terribly precise, and there would not be 'standards' with 'certifying authorities' (for example, as exist for safes).

Usage: "If you think it could be defeated by a bare-handed ten-year-old, you oughta buy something better."

OK I'm resurrecting this old post because I never saw it until now, when you linked to it in the current knife carry discussion.

I don't like your definition. I think that given enough time, a 10 year old boy could break into any currently made gun lock box or case. 10 year old boys are pretty resourceful and tenacious. Heck, as a kid, I remember defeating dial type combination locks, simply by trying every combination until I found the correct one. And you didn't exclude picks for keyed locks. And you didn't exclude using knowledge from the internet to learn how to defeat electronic locks. And you didn't exclude using his friends to combine strength and rip or break a container apart. The possibilities are endless.

I defy anyone to find any case that a 10 year old boy could NOT break into.

ETA: And let's consider the purpose of the "secure" container. It's not to protect the firearm, nor the owner of the firearm. From a LE perspective, the purpose of the secure container is to protect the LEO, to prevent the owner of the firearm from having easy or ready access. For this purpose, just about any lock that slows you down for a moment is good enough.

AGGRO
07-16-2013, 10:47 AM
The ultimate would be a light weight, belt looped, bio safe kinda like this!

http://www.amazon.com/Gunvault-MV500-STD-Microvault-Pistol-Safe/dp/B000TG9RCC

Librarian
07-16-2013, 12:19 PM
OK I'm resurrecting this old post because I never saw it until now, when you linked to it in the current knife carry discussion.

I don't like your definition. I think that given enough time, a 10 year old boy could break into any currently made gun lock box or case. 10 year old boys are pretty resourceful and tenacious. Heck, as a kid, I remember defeating dial type combination locks, simply by trying every combination until I found the correct one. And you didn't exclude picks for keyed locks. And you didn't exclude using knowledge from the internet to learn how to defeat electronic locks. And you didn't exclude using his friends to combine strength and rip or break a container apart. The possibilities are endless.

I defy anyone to find any case that a 10 year old boy could NOT break into.

ETA: And let's consider the purpose of the "secure" container. It's not to protect the firearm, nor the owner of the firearm. From a LE perspective, the purpose of the secure container is to protect the LEO, to prevent the owner of the firearm from having easy or ready access. For this purpose, just about any lock that slows you down for a moment is good enough.
Of course the possibilities are endless - given enough time.

But that usage makes as much sense as many of the other suggestions on locked cases.