PDA

View Full Version : What is a "locked container?"


Mr.CRC
11-12-2009, 8:28 PM
Hi:

Super paranoid about following the letter of the law here, so I'm trying to clarify every little detail.

From a legal perspective, a "locked container" specifies nothing about the type of material from which the container is constructed, or whether the container is soft (fabric) or hard (metal or polymer), right?

So, a range bag, duffel bag, or other fabric (soft) bag which has zippers which can be padlocked together constitutes legally a "locked container."

Is this correct?

Thanks all who have responded to my detail clarifying questions. I hope these discussions benefit not only myself.

Librarian
11-12-2009, 8:37 PM
Since there is no definition in PC, you are entirely correct.

If you don't think a case is secure, in your opinion, use one that IS secure (again, in your opinion).

Read this old post of mine ... http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1711983&postcount=22

KylaGWolf
11-12-2009, 8:40 PM
Keep in mind if you use a soft case you need to make sure that the closure cannot be manipulated or it may not qualify to be a locking case. To be safe a hard sided case with a locking mechanism either already on the case or a padlock would be your best bet.

Mstrty
11-12-2009, 8:44 PM
When I use the last two slices of bread I often put my gun in the bag and tie it in a knot. I can then stuff a padlock through the bag securing the knot. Now someone would have to destroy the container to get the gun, is it locked?

Ok I'm being silly but so is our firearm laws.

paul0660
11-12-2009, 9:00 PM
You guys are all correct.

Kid Stanislaus
11-13-2009, 10:15 AM
Bombmaster wrote: "When I use the last two slices of bread I often put my gun in the bag and tie it in a knot. I can then stuff a padlock through the bag securing the knot. Now someone would have to destroy the container to get the gun, is it locked? Ok I'm being silly but so is our firearm laws."

You're being silly alright. There is an established test something to the effect that the "case" has to be strong enough to prevent a 10 yr. old child from breaking into it with his/her bare hands. And no, I can't cite the law.

RickD6023
11-13-2009, 10:23 AM
I had a soft gun bag with a zipper. I placed a grommet at the end of the zipper and got a lock that could go through the zipper pull and the bag/grommet. That was "locked" since the gun was inaccessible when secured. Another method is wrapping the cable gun lock around the handle of a gun box handle so that the box cannot be pried open to access the gun.

These methods work in addition to the obvious Center of Mass / Secure-It lock boxes.

wildhawker
11-13-2009, 10:24 AM
Bombmaster wrote: "When I use the last two slices of bread I often put my gun in the bag and tie it in a knot. I can then stuff a padlock through the bag securing the knot. Now someone would have to destroy the container to get the gun, is it locked? Ok I'm being silly but so is our firearm laws."

You're being silly alright. There is an established test something to the effect that the "case" has to be strong enough to prevent a 10 yr. old child from breaking into it with his/her bare hands. And no, I can't cite the law.

There is no established legal test; that was something Librarian came up with to provide an example of a common sense sniff test. Of course, you're absolutely correct that the locked bread bad is silly.

Glock22Fan
11-13-2009, 10:53 AM
Don't forget, it might be unwise to use a soft-sided case where the sides are so soft that it might be possible to manipulate the firearm through the case. I'm betting that there are some nylon backpacks (and bread bags!) where it might be possible to load and fire a pistol without unlocking the bag.

Again, this is based on speculation, as (to my knowledge) there is no law, or case law, defining a "secure" case.

Casual_Shooter
11-13-2009, 11:03 AM
The only comment I've seen about a possible issue with locking a soft-sided bag is that the zippers must be locked together in such a fashion that you can't pull them partially apart and remove the firearm, stick your hand in the bag etc.

CHS
11-13-2009, 12:06 PM
http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m446/bdsmchs/1028092136a.jpg

That's my locking container.

Meets the definition of fully-enclosed.

Kid Stanislaus
11-14-2009, 10:22 AM
There is no established legal test; that was something Librarian came up with to provide an example of a common sense sniff test. Of course, you're absolutely correct that the locked bread bad is silly.

I stand corrected.

tba02
11-14-2009, 12:32 PM
bdsmchs,
Is that a maxpedition fatboy? I'm trying to decide between that and 5.11 push pack. I looked at a push pack today and would have to add a grommet to feel comfortable about a solid lock. Assuming it's a maxpedition, I might lean that way.

CHS
11-14-2009, 4:41 PM
bdsmchs,
Is that a maxpedition fatboy? I'm trying to decide between that and 5.11 push pack. I looked at a push pack today and would have to add a grommet to feel comfortable about a solid lock. Assuming it's a maxpedition, I might lean that way.

Yup. It's a Maxpedition Fatboy.

KylaGWolf
11-14-2009, 7:21 PM
The only comment I've seen about a possible issue with locking a soft-sided bag is that the zippers must be locked together in such a fashion that you can't pull them partially apart and remove the firearm, stick your hand in the bag etc.


There is also some debate about if the zipper is secure enough to not be broken if twisted if you put the lock through it. Had a really interesting conversation with Liberty1 on that one. :)

Hunter4life1990
11-15-2009, 12:05 AM
so legally i can keep this in my truck with a hand gun and mags (or speed loaders for a revolver) as long as the gun is not loaded?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5706773

Librarian
11-15-2009, 6:49 AM
so legally i can keep this in my truck with a hand gun and mags (or speed loaders for a revolver) as long as the gun is not loaded?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5706773

It qualifies as a 'locked container', so if you think that's 'secure', then yes.

In this case, of course, it provides only protection against PC12025 violations - taking a gun into prohibited areas would still be a problem.

MossbergMan
11-15-2009, 5:59 PM
For secure storage of loaded and unloaded guns, check out Titan Gun Vaults in San Dimas. Not only will their lock box keep a loaded gun secure for home defense, you can get the optional magazine/speedloader attachment and have your transportation needs met as well.

The cool part of the vault in transportation mode is, with the proper mounting plate, you can have access to your unloaded (compliant with cpc 12030 and 12026.1) gun. In a matter of a few seconds you go from unarmed to armed. All totally legal. Open the vault lid and your gun slids up in a holster (unloaded) at the same time the magazine/speedloader attachment pops open and there is instant access to your ammunition. If needed, load your firearm and be ready. Gun is one compartment, ammo in another, both locked. The vault is easily moved between residence, office, vehicles, firing range. Multiple mounting plates and a convienent carrying handle make all work.

Theseus
11-15-2009, 6:09 PM
My head is a locked container!

The only problem I can see with this is that since there is no definition of "secure" the DA can try and use creative filing with a judge just like they did in my case and 626.9.

Without a clear definition it can mean anything they want it to mean.

I had a hard case that I thought was secure until it was shown that even with using a lock, one could gain access to the firearm. It was the box the manufacturer provided with the gun. So don't assume either that just because it is a hard case that it is "secure".

Hunter4life1990
11-15-2009, 6:14 PM
having it unloaded and put in a locked container still means you cant have the weapon in certain areas?

Cokebottle
11-15-2009, 6:23 PM
having it unloaded and put in a locked container still means you cant have the weapon in certain areas?
Very, very few, such as on K-12 school property.

Mr.CRC
11-15-2009, 8:05 PM
My head is a locked container!

The only problem I can see with this is that since there is no definition of "secure" the DA can try and use creative filing with a judge just like they did in my case and 626.9.

Without a clear definition it can mean anything they want it to mean.

I had a hard case that I thought was secure until it was shown that even with using a lock, one could gain access to the firearm. It was the box the manufacturer provided with the gun. So don't assume either that just because it is a hard case that it is "secure".

Sounds like the only way to be sure would be to transport in a locking device on the DOJ approved list.

Good grief, now I have to decide whether to be that paranoid, or just put in a bag or hard sided case with a reasonably secure locking scheme like everybody else.

Maybe I should just bolt a full long gun safe to the roof of my car...

bohoki
11-15-2009, 8:30 PM
gee i got a slight unrelated question


the origional glocks came in a box that looked like tupperware with a hole in the center for i assume a lock but ive never seen one that willfit in there

i imagine some kind of plug that would go up through the bottom and you could put a lock through that but have never seen one does anybody know what the glock box lock looked like?

Sgt Raven
11-16-2009, 8:45 AM
gee i got a slight unrelated question


the origional glocks came in a box that looked like tupperware with a hole in the center for i assume a lock but ive never seen one that willfit in there

i imagine some kind of plug that would go up through the bottom and you could put a lock through that but have never seen one does anybody know what the glock box lock looked like?

It was a cable lock that went through the hole and ended up locked at one side. I have one somewhere around my house. IIRC it had red plastic around the lock body.

zman
11-16-2009, 9:03 AM
so legally i can keep this in my truck with a hand gun and mags (or speed loaders for a revolver) as long as the gun is not loaded?
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5706773

Not permanently. You can't have it there 24/7. It is for "transporting" the handgun e.g. from your house to the shooting range.

bohoki
11-16-2009, 12:17 PM
Related question: Let's say you go with a CA-approved "childproof"" locking device. Where does the key have to be?

Obviously there's no mention of this in the law so I'm wondering for each of the following circumstances:
A) Desperate DA
B) Childproof test, keeping in mind 17-year-old gangbangers are children.

i prefer the little combo luggage locks so i cant loose the key

and i often just leave them one number off so i can open it rapidly

like if my combo is 000 i'll leave it to 001

http://images.orgill.com/200x200/6638381.jpg

Hunter4life1990
11-16-2009, 12:34 PM
Not permanently. You can't have it there 24/7. It is for "transporting" the handgun e.g. from your house to the shooting range.

the container can stay in the vehicle though correct?like if i purchased a truck vault,as long as the firearm is removed when im not using the vehicle then that is legal yes?

Decoligny
11-16-2009, 12:42 PM
the container can stay in the vehicle though correct?like if i purchased a truck vault,as long as the firearm is removed when im not using the vehicle then that is legal yes?

It is not required by law that you remove the firearm when you are not using the vehicle. There may be times when you are in your vehicle and need to go into a building that will not allow you to carry a firearm. You are not "using" your vehicle when you go into the building, but you can keep your firearm locked up in your vehicle while in the building. I even know a few people who have "locked containers" in their vehicle that contain a firearm at all times.

IrishPirate
11-16-2009, 12:56 PM
a 1970's-something Dukes of Hazard lunchpale with a cable lock around the handle is a locked container. airplane luggage with a lock through the zippers is a locked container. my wife's makeup box has a lock on it...so it's a locked container. gloveboxes, while a locking container....dont count. they make soft sided gun cases that has a key to lock the zipper in place rather than locking the zipper to another zipper or D-ring. i have one, it works great.

Mikeb
11-16-2009, 1:51 PM
My favorite "locked container" is a briefcase with a combo lock. It dosen't draw attention and can be set one number off for fast access.
take care
Mike

ZUMNDAD
11-16-2009, 10:17 PM
IIRC, CA law recognizes your locked trunk as one large locked container. As long as your ammo and weapons are in separate containers, you are good.

Typically my ammo is in my range bag and my weapons are in a separate, locked ADG multi-weapon case. I also have an FAA approved pelican 2-gun case with built in locks.

Cokebottle
11-16-2009, 10:28 PM
IIRC, CA law recognizes your locked trunk as one large locked container. As long as your ammo and weapons are in separate containers, you are good.
Nope.

No need to separate. It perhaps used to be the case, but it either is no longer, or was never true.
The ammo can be in the magazines and even in physical contact with the gun as long as the magazine is not inserted in a position to be fired.

CHS
11-17-2009, 7:37 AM
Nope.

No need to separate. It perhaps used to be the case, but it either is no longer, or was never true.
The ammo can be in the magazines and even in physical contact with the gun as long as the magazine is not inserted in a position to be fired.

This.

The trunk is considered a locked container as long as you cannot open it or get access to it without a key from inside the vehicle.

Ammo and guns don't need to be separate. Guns need to be unloaded however.

Cokebottle
11-17-2009, 5:29 PM
???
626.9 is in reference to the GFSZ area, which is 1000ft surrounding the perimeter of any K-12 school.
Transportation or possession in a locked container is legal within that area, but not actually on school property.

Even ammunition is prohibited on school property:

12316. (c) Unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent school authority, no person shall carry ammunition or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds, except sworn law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties or persons exempted under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 12027. This subdivision shall 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 an arrest 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 Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4, or an armored vehicle guard, who is engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 7521 of the Business and Professions Code. A violation of this subdivision is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a term not to exceed six months, a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both the imprisonment and fine.
I can't find a direct cite that specifically prohibits locked firearms on school property, but someone who works for the district asked about it in another thread and someone posted the section covering it.
It was a wobbler on district property that wasn't actually used for instruction (such as administrative offices downtown), as the wording specified something to the effect of pupils being on the grounds.

Cokebottle
11-18-2009, 5:16 PM
So 626.9 prohibits the possession of firearms on campus "property or grounds" but in a locked and unloaded in a container it is legal to transport through the "zone".

...but what about in my trunk? still no possess on grounds? gheyness. And ammo? First time I heard about that. ugh :x
Trunk counts as a locked container provided that the rear seats can't be folded down without a key, so you're GTG to transport through the 1000ft zone.

I'm still trying to find the statute that specifies that unloaded, locked possession is not permitted on school grounds, but since they do specifically prohibit ammo on school grounds, loading up the car in the morning for a trip to the range after school would be 100% out of the question, unless, possibly, you are buying ammo at the range.

RUM
11-18-2009, 6:19 PM
So is a camper shell on a pickup considered a locked container??

Librarian
11-18-2009, 6:23 PM
I'm still trying to find the statute that specifies that unloaded, locked possession is not permitted on school grounds,

I suggest that's 626.9(f)(1)
(f) (1) Any person who violates subdivision (b) by possessing a
firearm in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school
providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive,
shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three,
or five years.
and 626.9 (h) and (i) (h) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or
possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or
buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research,
or administration by, a public or private university or college, that
are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it
is with the written permission of the university or college
president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college
authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
two, three, or four years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a
university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary
entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are
prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.
(i) Notwithstanding Section 12026, any person who brings or
possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or buildings
owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or
administration by, a public or private university or college, that
are contiguous or are clearly marked university property, unless it
is with the written permission of the university or college
president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college
authority, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for
one, two, or three years. Notwithstanding subdivision (k), a
university or college shall post a prominent notice at primary
entrances on noncontiguous property stating that firearms are
prohibited on that property pursuant to this subdivision.


ETA -- I decided to look through Lexis tonight to see what made it up to appellate level. Lexis returned 63 cases that cite 626.9 somehow.

Lots of 626.9(b) violations.

One case could have cited (f) but instead went with (d) (discharge in a school zone). One case cited (f)(1) but I think mistakenly. This one - Plaintiff John Van Fossen ("Van Fossen") was employed as a school psychologist in the Sierra Sands Unified School District ("Sierra Sands") starting in August 12, 2002. ... On February 12, 2004, Van Fossen brought a non-functional Japanese World War II era pistol to his office at school ... On April 20, 2004, Van Fossen was formally arrested by Ridgecrest police officers for violating California Penal Code 626.9 (the Gun Free School Zone Act). On July 23, 2004, criminal charges against Van Fossen were dismissed with prejudice. [JOHN VAN FOSSEN, Plaintiff, v. SIERRA SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY OF RIDGECREST, DOES 1-10, Defendant,CIV-F 05-1167 AWI LJO, (Docs. 16 and 19) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA]

Here's an unpublished opinion (juvenile) The juvenile court adjudged Falishia B. a ward of the court after finding she possessed a firearm on school campus (Pen. Code, ? 626.9, subd. (b)),[In re FALISHIA B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FALISHIA B., Defendant and Appellant. D038103 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE 2002 Cal. App. Unpub.]

an (h)(1) conviction, another juvenile case The juvenile court sustained the People's petition against a high school student for possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, 11351), possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, 11357, subd. (b)), carrying a concealed, loaded firearm on public school grounds (Pen. Code, 626.9, 12025, subd. (b), 12031, subd. (a)), another unpub Martinez was convicted of participating in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (a)) 1 and three weapon violations ( 12025 [gang member in possession of concealed firearm], 12031 [gang member in possession of loaded firearm in public], 626.9 [possession of firearm on school grounds]). a possession on school grounds, pretty clearly an (f)(1) violation The trial court found Daniel had committed two assaults with a deadly weapon--one each on Marc and Joseph. He was also found to have violated Penal Code section 626.9 by possessing a firearm upon public school grounds.[In re DANIEL R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. DANIEL R., Defendant and Appellant. No. G011218 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE. 7 Cal. App. 4th 581; 9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 9

but not one is 'unloaded firearm in a locked case brought onto K-12 school grounds'.

Nobody gets caught? Cops are sensible? That act is OK? Absence of evidence doesn't tell us which.

Cokebottle
11-18-2009, 6:49 PM
Thanks Lib... I was looking in the 120xx sections.

Chris51080
11-18-2009, 7:16 PM
IIRC, CA law recognizes your locked trunk as one large locked container. As long as your ammo and weapons are in separate containers, you are good.


I got called on this at a local range. One of the workers saw my gun bag, and noticed that it did not have a padlock on it. He kindly reminded me that I should make sure to get a padlock for it so that I would stay within the law. I mentioned the fact that I had transported it in my car, locked in my trunk. Removed it while on private property (parking lot) and brought it into the store that way.

What is the law in regards to removing your gun bag from the locked container (trunk of your car) and bringing it from the parking lot to the range? Do I need to have a padlock on my bag?

FWIW, I have a 5.11 range bag. Two pistols are in zippered compartments within the main zippered compartment. Mags are always unloaded, and in a separate compartment.

Cokebottle
11-18-2009, 7:27 PM
What is the law in regards to removing your gun bag from the locked container (trunk of your car) and bringing it from the parking lot to the range? Do I need to have a padlock on my bag?
"Everyone" does it, but it's not legal.
Technically, if the bag is not locked, it is concealed carry. It's no different from having a gun in your fanny pack or your wife's purse walking through the mall parking lot.

Even with owner permission to CCW on private property, this would not typically apply to a customer at a gun shop.

It would be more legal to remove it from the locked case and insert it into a drop-leg holster while still in the car and legally UOC into the store.... but some stores have policies prohibiting holsters.

But now we have a case with a conviction pending appeal of a UOC charge against a forum member who was legally UOC on private property inside of a gun free school zone (1000ft)... even though the law states that private property is exempted.

Chris51080
11-18-2009, 8:05 PM
"Everyone" does it, but it's not legal.


Thank you. Sounds like I'll be finding some padlocks.

glockfu
11-19-2009, 2:36 PM
Nope.

No need to separate. It perhaps used to be the case, but it either is no longer, or was never true.
The ammo can be in the magazines and even in physical contact with the gun as long as the magazine is not inserted in a position to be fired.

This statement sounds a little misleading. To my understanding the loaded magazine cannot be inserted into the magwell even if the gun is not chambered. This would leave the magazine in a position that cannot be fired but still illegal. Please correct me if Im wrong.

Theseus
11-19-2009, 3:08 PM
This.

The trunk is considered a locked container as long as you cannot open it or get access to it without a key from inside the vehicle.

Ammo and guns don't need to be separate. Guns need to be unloaded however.

Under Federal law the case of the accessible trunk is true, but there is no evidence I could find anywhere that a car with folding seats makes the trunk not a trunk for the purposes of 626.9 or 12025/26.

Neither of these laws use the same specific language as the Federal law.

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 3:17 PM
This statement sounds a little misleading. To my understanding the loaded magazine cannot be inserted into the magwell even if the gun is not chambered. This would leave the magazine in a position that cannot be fired but still illegal. Please correct me if Im wrong.
You are correct.

"Position" (or condition) to be fired has been defined as "Rounds physically in the gun", whether cocked and locked or not.

Empty chamber, empty magwell or empty mag in the magwell and you're GTG even if a loaded mag is in physical contact with the gun.

CHS
11-19-2009, 4:25 PM
A loaded magazine inside a gun without a round in the chamber still presents rounds into a position from which they can be fired.

You don't need to do anything but manipulate the slide in order to fire a round.

Lets take it one step further: What if a loaded magazine was in the gun, with the slide locked back? Is there anything in a position from which it can be fired? To be absolutely technical, no, but all you have to do is hit that slide release and you're in business.

Saying nothing is in a position from which it can be fired while a loaded mag is in the gun is being VERY technical.

I don't know anyone who DOESNT consider a gun with a loaded mag in the magwell "loaded".

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 4:33 PM
I don't know anyone who DOESNT consider a gun with a loaded mag in the magwell "loaded".
Correct. The clarification was specifically to allow the storage of shotshells (and I suppose "sniper" rifle ammo) on attachments on the buttstock and exterior of the receiver.

tba02
11-19-2009, 6:26 PM
"Everyone" does it, but it's not legal.
Technically, if the bag is not locked, it is concealed carry. It's no different from having a gun in your fanny pack or your wife's purse walking through the mall parking lot.

Even with owner permission to CCW on private property, this would not typically apply to a customer at a gun shop.

It would be more legal to remove it from the locked case and insert it into a drop-leg holster while still in the car and legally UOC into the store.... but some stores have policies prohibiting holsters.

But now we have a case with a conviction pending appeal of a UOC charge against a forum member who was legally UOC on private property inside of a gun free school zone (1000ft)... even though the law states that private property is exempted.

Help me out on this one. Though my bag is locked when I arrive at the range (no trunk), at what point does it become legal to have my pistol unlocked but still in my range bag? What is it that makes it the line, not the lot (20 feet) a factor in me breaking the law?

And say I do have a trunk - walking from a gun shop, on private property, having a new pistol - in an unlocked container - that ~30 feet is illegal?

I live under 100 feet from a school, with no driveway, so trust me, all my stuff has locks - but I am not sure about the above situation you reference.

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 6:45 PM
Help me out on this one. Though my bag is locked when I arrive at the range (no trunk), at what point does it become legal to have my pistol unlocked but still in my range bag? What is it that makes it the line, not the lot (20 feet) a factor in me breaking the law?

And say I do have a trunk - walking from a gun shop, on private property, having a new pistol - in an unlocked container - that ~30 feet is illegal?

I live under 100 feet from a school, with no driveway, so trust me, all my stuff has locks - but I am not sure about the above situation you reference.
Outside of the 1000ft school zone, unloaded open carry is legal unless otherwise prohibited. Perhaps not wise, but legal.

Concealed carry on public property is never legal without a permit.
Concealed carry on private property (other than your domicile) is legal with permission of the property owner. This would be the actual holder of the deed... not the store manager, not the person or entity leasing the building... the actual property owner. This means that concealed carry (without a permit) from an apartment to the carport is illegal unless you are on very good terms with the owner.

I suppose that technically, any time you unlock a gun case to remove the gun, you are "concealed" for the short time it takes to open the case, but I would think that falls under "reasonable", as it is physically impossible to transition from locked-carry to UOC without being concealed at some point.

And that's the other half of the problem that Theseus is facing... He was legally UOC on private property within the GFSZ and he was charged and convicted because the DA and judge did not recognize the wording of the law as "private property = private property"... they interpreted it as "private property = private property not open to the public"....
If his appeals are rejected, there will be case law supporting an apartment parking lot... or even the front yard and driveway of a home... as non-exempt from the GFSZ.

At that point, the only way to get the gun into or out of the trunk is if it is STILL within a locked container after being removed from the trunk.

Considering the alternative to CCW in the range parking lot would be UOC, I would still pick up some kind of actual locking container for carrying to and from the range... at least until Theseus's case is resolved.
If it is resolved favorably, then we will have case law supporting 626.9 as written and we can legally OC virtually anywhere other than within 1000ft of a school IF we are aware of the school's presence.

Theseus
11-19-2009, 9:13 PM
Help me out on this one. Though my bag is locked when I arrive at the range (no trunk), at what point does it become legal to have my pistol unlocked but still in my range bag? What is it that makes it the line, not the lot (20 feet) a factor in me breaking the law?

And say I do have a trunk - walking from a gun shop, on private property, having a new pistol - in an unlocked container - that ~30 feet is illegal?

I live under 100 feet from a school, with no driveway, so trust me, all my stuff has locks - but I am not sure about the above situation you reference.

Guys. . . come on. 12025, the code that makes concealment illegal is excluded by 12026.2(a)(9) when you are going to and from a target range.
12026.2(a)Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:

(9) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range, which holds a
regulatory or business license, for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range.

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 9:19 PM
Guys. . . come on. 12025, the code that makes concealment illegal is excluded by 12026.2(a)(9) when you are going to and from a target range.
Gotcha.

So the range employee was providing FUD, as was I.

GuyW
11-19-2009, 10:07 PM
Concealed carry on public property is never legal without a permit.


Not actually true.
.

CHS
11-19-2009, 10:45 PM
Not actually true.
.

Correct.

Concealed carry of an unloaded long gun is perfectly legal :)

Some of those pistol-grip only shotguns are damn near exactly 26" too ;)

Cokebottle
11-19-2009, 10:49 PM
Correct.

Concealed carry of an unloaded long gun is perfectly legal :)

Some of those pistol-grip only shotguns are damn near exactly 26" too ;)
I shouldn't have said "never".
Hunting, fishing, in a campsite.... yes, there are some situations where CCW is legal by someone otherwise unpermitted.

But for the most part, in urban or suburban areas, it is correct.

tba02
11-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Guys. . . come on. 12025, the code that makes concealment illegal is excluded by 12026.2(a)(9) when you are going to and from a target range.


Thanks, and to clarify some,
12026.2 (b)
(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.

So once you have reached the destination, subscribing to (b), then (a) is in effect.

Decoligny
11-20-2009, 11:33 AM
Related question: Let's say you go with a CA-approved "childproof"" locking device. Where does the key have to be?

Obviously there's no mention of this in the law so I'm wondering for each of the following circumstances:
A) Desperate DA
B) Childproof test, keeping in mind 17-year-old gangbangers are children.

If you are refering to a CA approved "childproof" locking device such as this:

http://www.uniquetek.com/members/696296/uploaded/glock3x2@72.gif

then it would not be considered "Locked IN a secure container"

Decoligny
11-20-2009, 11:42 AM
Outside of the 1000ft school zone, unloaded open carry is legal unless otherwise prohibited. Perhaps not wise, but legal.

Concealed carry on public property is never legal without a permit.Concealed carry on private property (other than your domicile) is legal with permission of the property owner. This would be the actual holder of the deed... not the store manager, not the person or entity leasing the building... the actual property owner. This means that concealed carry (without a permit) from an apartment to the carport is illegal unless you are on very good terms with the owner.

I suppose that technically, any time you unlock a gun case to remove the gun, you are "concealed" for the short time it takes to open the case, but I would think that falls under "reasonable", as it is physically impossible to transition from locked-carry to UOC without being concealed at some point.

And that's the other half of the problem that Theseus is facing... He was legally UOC on private property within the GFSZ and he was charged and convicted because the DA and judge did not recognize the wording of the law as "private property = private property"... they interpreted it as "private property = private property not open to the public"....
If his appeals are rejected, there will be case law supporting an apartment parking lot... or even the front yard and driveway of a home... as non-exempt from the GFSZ.

At that point, the only way to get the gun into or out of the trunk is if it is STILL within a locked container after being removed from the trunk.

Considering the alternative to CCW in the range parking lot would be UOC, I would still pick up some kind of actual locking container for carrying to and from the range... at least until Theseus's case is resolved.
If it is resolved favorably, then we will have case law supporting 626.9 as written and we can legally OC virtually anywhere other than within 1000ft of a school IF we are aware of the school's presence.

Not 100% true. A violation of 12025, concealed loaded carry, is permissible without a CCW if you have a restraining order on someone who you consider to be a threat to your life.

12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This section may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 12025, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 12:04 PM
Bombmaster wrote: "When I use the last two slices of bread I often put my gun in the bag and tie it in a knot. I can then stuff a padlock through the bag securing the knot. Now someone would have to destroy the container to get the gun, is it locked? Ok I'm being silly but so is our firearm laws."

You're being silly alright. There is an established test something to the effect that the "case" has to be strong enough to prevent a 10 yr. old child from breaking into it with his/her bare hands. And no, I can't cite the law.

That could also trigger the disguised handgun law that covers any container that makes a firearm not immediately recognizable as a firearm but allows its operation.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 12:06 PM
Not 100% true. A violation of 12025, concealed loaded carry, is permissible without a CCW if you have a restraining order on someone who you consider to be a threat to your life.

12025.5. (a) A violation of Section 12025 is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This section may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 12025, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.

That is a valuable tidbit to remind people. There has been some complaints about people with restraining orders not being able to get CCWs. Fact is in CA, a restraining order that stems from threats of violence carries the same weight as a CCW.

Theseus
11-20-2009, 1:25 PM
That is a valuable tidbit to remind people. There has been some complaints about people with restraining orders not being able to get CCWs. Fact is in CA, a restraining order that stems from threats of violence carries the same weight as a CCW.

Problem is the wording of this law.

Read:
(b) Upon trial for violating Section 12025, the trier of fact shall determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief that he or she was in grave danger.The trier of fact is a jury. You would go to trial and then the jury has to decide if you were acting out of a reasonable belief that you were in grave danger. It is not as clear cut.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 2:16 PM
Problem is the wording of this law.

Read:
The trier of fact is a jury. You would go to trial and then the jury has to decide if you were acting out of a reasonable belief that you were in grave danger. It is not as clear cut.

True, but given the unlikelihood of ever having to justify your CCW in the first place, combined with the likelihood of an officer dropping the matter if you had a copy of your restraining order on hand, I wouldn't hesitate to CC if I had a restraining order out on somebody. I might pursue a CCW license in the mean time, but if I had somebody after me, and I had legal cover, I'd make use of it.