PDA

View Full Version : Padlocking two zippers together on a backpack MAY NOT be a locked container.


HondaMasterTech
08-06-2010, 4:44 PM
* Edited title to reflect the fact that you may own a soft case with a zipper closure that cannot be opened in the same manner demonstrated in this video*

Can't recall from the thousands of threads already on this subject if it was every realized but a small padlock on two zippers of a backpack CAN BE OPENED.

The zipper can be pulled through the zipper-pull even though there is a lock locking them together. Since the bag is flexible you can pull apart between the two zipper-pulls and open the bag. The container is not being broken into. The zipper is not being broken. The zipper-pulls are being pulled apart from one another causing the zipper to open as it was designed. It could be argued that this is not a locked container.

My intention is to warn people to avoid finding themselves in a compromising situation because they decided that locking a zipper in this fashion is going to be considered a locked container for the purposes of carrying firearms in the eyes of a court of law. I am not a lawyer or a judge. Take this for what it's worth.

The only way I have found to solve this is to put a padlock that goes through the bag behind the far zipper-pull. This prevents the zipper from being able to go through the zipper-pull.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CYWyyPhPrko&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CYWyyPhPrko&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="appli

247Nino
08-06-2010, 4:47 PM
pics? my imagination is hurting right now

Purple K
08-06-2010, 4:49 PM
Yes, someone could defeat certain zippers. However, the law says locked container. The law does not define how sturdy or secure the container must be. You're thinking about it way too hard.

frankm
08-06-2010, 4:51 PM
I think the law views it that the gun cannot be easily manipulated. That means a paper bag with a lock on it is not a legitimate container.

HondaMasterTech
08-06-2010, 4:53 PM
I don't think I'm overthinking this. I can simply pull apart between the two zippers and open the container. This doesn't involve breaking the container or lock in any way.

N6ATF
08-06-2010, 4:55 PM
:confused: YouTube, NOW!

WWDHD?
08-06-2010, 4:56 PM
Come on. This is how I've transported handguns to the range since I started going. Isn't that what the holes on the ends of the zipper tab is for?

SJgunguy24
08-06-2010, 4:59 PM
If you destroy or damage the container getting the handgun out, how is that not a locked container?

The sturdiness of the container is not defined by CA law.

thayne
08-06-2010, 5:01 PM
I don't think I'm overthinking this. I can simply pull apart between the two zippers and open the container. This doesn't involve breaking the container or lock in any way.

you need to get a higher quality back pack.

Kodemonkey
08-06-2010, 5:01 PM
My Gunmate range bag has a special zipper that allows you to run the lock through a hole when the two zippers mate. It does not loop through the hole in the zipper pull.

I am not saying that the backpack isn't CA legal, I am just stating that gun bags have a different system for locking the zippers together and there may be a reason for it.

Fot
08-06-2010, 5:02 PM
I can rip open the plastic pistol cases if I wanted too. Still a locked case.

BKinzey
08-06-2010, 5:14 PM
While your scenario may be true I don't think your conclusion is. Just because you might be able to open a case in this manner doesn't really affect it's legality. A box cutter would make short work of any soft case I've seen. By simply twisting the lock you can easily break the lock free from the zipper. I would suggest either of these techniques would afford faster accessibility than your method yet they would not affect the legality of the case.

HondaMasterTech
08-06-2010, 5:23 PM
I added a video in post 1 to demonstrate what I have found. The container is not being broken, neither is the lock. I also found that anchoring the zipper-pulls to a loop at the end of the zipper did not change anything about this scenario since the zipper can still travel through the zipper-pull.

I found that putting the lock through the fabric of the bag in very small holes behind the zipper-pulls, I can prevent the zipper from going through the zipper-pull and making the bag impossible to open without breaking the bag or the lock.

Sniper3142
08-06-2010, 5:30 PM
Interesting

But this would only work on very thin and easily manipulated bags.

I just tried this on 2 of my backpacks and neither could be opened more than an inch or two. That is not enough to pick up a pencil, let alone a firearm that might also be inside another container (like a pistol case).

And forget about trying this on a rifle bag that is made of much heavier and hard to manipulate material.

thayne
08-06-2010, 5:31 PM
I added a video in post 1 to demonstrate what I have found. The container is not being broken, neither is the lock. I also found that anchoring the zipper-pulls to a loop at the end of the zipper did not change anything about this scenario since the zipper can still travel through the zipper-pull.

I found that putting the lock through the fabric of the bag in very small holes behind the zipper-pulls, I can prevent the zipper from going through the zipper-pull and making the bag impossible to open without breaking the bag or the lock.

Ah, now that makes sense. hmmm. But the law doesnt say you have to remove the lock to open the container. Just has to be a locked container.

Monte
08-06-2010, 5:34 PM
There's also this to be aware of. I've personally never tried it. I just don't want to risk screwing up a zipper. What bearing this has on the legal definition of a locked container, if any, I don't know. I'm inclined to think that I'm still fine with a locked zipper, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwfYuUPcgHg

bruss01
08-06-2010, 5:34 PM
With enough effort, ANY locked container can be compromised. How much effort must be required for the container to be considered "locked"? That is not defined in CA law. First, a cop would have to decide it was too flimsy to be considered locked. Then a DA would have to decide it was too flimsy to be considered locked. Then a judge and/or jury would have to decide it was too flimsy to be considered locked. By the time it passes all those hurdles, most people would be convinced it was not "locked"... I can picture a bag with holes in it, or a netting-type bag that you can easily poke your fingers through, might not be considered locked even if there is technically a padlock on it. I think that any normal type of container, whether it is hard case or fabric, if anyone below the age of 15 cannot get into it without tools, it would probably be considered locked for the purposes of the law. That is my opinion though, and IANL.

thevic
08-06-2010, 5:52 PM
i attach a pro-gun trigger lock on my 5.11 bag and it completely covers the zipper so you cannot tamper with it...none the less a sharp knife will cutt through the bag lol

TKM
08-06-2010, 6:58 PM
I've given some thought to getting these for my Midway range bags.

http://www.pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&_action=detail&id=49

They just cost twice as much as the bag but less than a third of my cheapest pistol........

Librarian
08-06-2010, 7:07 PM
This is one of those nagging questions that keeps coming up, and there is no 'good' answer for it.

Since there is no definition of 'secure', and no case law to clarify, we're stuck with a 2-prong common sense test, performed while sober:

do I think this container is secure?
do I actually think that J. Random Officer, PD, would agree?
If you cannot honestly answer 'yes' to both, you should pick a different container.

Connor P Price
08-06-2010, 7:29 PM
The backpack in that video seems to have a fairly thin zipper. I would not consider that a locked container with how easily it can be opened without having to defeat the lock or container. A bag with a thicker zipper would not allow this to happen though.

WWDHD?
08-06-2010, 7:51 PM
Ok, what if I keep a trained wolverine inside my zippered/padlocked Jansport backpack (containing an unloaded handgun) that will on comand eat a fist sized hole through the side if said backpack, thus allowing quick access to an unloaded gun, would a cop,DA,judge, or jury find that a violation of the CA law?
Maybe they'd tack on an abuse of animals charge as well.

N6ATF
08-06-2010, 7:59 PM
LOL, mea culpa. I totally forgot how cheap some backpacks can be. Last one I used was a camping one with an aluminum-reinforced back.

diginit
08-06-2010, 8:30 PM
Yes, someone could defeat certain zippers. However, the law says locked container. The law does not define how sturdy or secure the container must be. You're thinking about it way too hard.

Sorry, The PC 12026.1 (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.
The definition of secure can be found in the dictionary. That definition is what the DOJ and the courts would consider secure. We all know what a secure container means. So does the judge. Our criminal courts are not as stupid as our legislators.

wkd4496
08-06-2010, 9:04 PM
anything can be accessed with the right tools...

Connor P Price
08-06-2010, 9:12 PM
anything can be accessed with the right tools...

Clearly your right, however the point is that the backpack in the video was accessed without any tools at all and without damaging the backpack at all.

thefinger
08-06-2010, 9:20 PM
I understand the argument presented by the original poster, but I totally disagree. I think any cop you run into will agree that the backpack counts as a locked container.

The only time I think you'd have a problem is if you ripped open the bag to retrieve your gun for use in a defense scenario. That might cause you problems with investigators.

AyatollahGondola
08-06-2010, 10:06 PM
This is one of those nagging questions that keeps coming up, and there is no 'good' answer for it.

Since there is no definition of 'secure', and no case law to clarify, we're stuck with a 2-prong common sense test, performed while sober:

do I think this container is secure?
do I actually think that J. Random Officer, PD, would agree?
If you cannot honestly answer 'yes' to both, you should pick a different container.

I did read some case law on this subject, and judge had ruled that a soft sided case was not secure. It's been a few years, so I'll have to think about it to jog the memory. I had the ruling pointed out to me by a retired CHP who sold guns as a side business back then. I did read it, and found no appeal beyond it.

GlennG31
08-06-2010, 10:54 PM
Okay, now I'm confused. My range bag (soft shell, not hard shell) has two lockable pouches on each side of the bag that were specifically meant to hold my pistols. And by lockable, I mean each pouch has two zippers that you can lock together with a padlock. So my soft-shell range bag with the built-in lockable gun pouches does not constitute a locked container when I take it to the range? Even though this is what it was specifically made for?

pullnshoot25
08-06-2010, 10:55 PM
This is one of those nagging questions that keeps coming up, and there is no 'good' answer for it.

Since there is no definition of 'secure', and no

I did read some case law on this subject, and judge had ruled that a soft sided case was not secure. It's been a few years, so I'll have to think about it to jog the memory. I had the ruling pointed out to me by a retired CHP who sold guns as a side business back then. I did read it, and found no appeal beyond it.

My interest is piqued.

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 7:54 AM
Okay, now I'm confused. My range bag (soft shell, not hard shell) has two lockable pouches on each side of the bag that were specifically meant to hold my pistols. And by lockable, I mean each pouch has two zippers that you can lock together with a padlock. So my soft-shell range bag with the built-in lockable gun pouches does not constitute a locked container when I take it to the range? Even though this is what it was specifically made for?

My interest is piqued.

That's right, the ruling specifically stated relevance to
"hard, or hard sided" case. It was a California court, and it was in the last ten years if I remember correctly. I know I kept some reference to it on one of my forums or on one of my old computers. Be patient; I'll locate it....

jimmykan
08-07-2010, 8:18 AM
Well what does the court or dictionary define as "hard" or "hard sided"?

Does the material have to have a modulus of elasticity greater than XXX MPa?

Must it exhibit less than YY.Y mm of deflection when subjected to ZZ.Z N of force?

Is a padded duck-cloth rug hard enough?

Is an injection molded MTM/Dosko/Plano/Flambeau case hard enough?

Is a stamped steel lock box hard enough?

Is a .250" thick enclosure made of carbide with a titanium nitride coating hard enough?

That would be hard, but brittle and susceptible to shattering on impact.

As would porcelain, which is hard, but would the courts consider it tough enough?

So is there also a toughness requirement on the container material? Must score a WW.W on the Izod impact test?

That would be a sight to see, huh? If the Penal Code actually specified all this. Maybe UL should create a Secure Locked Container standard.

jimmykan
08-07-2010, 8:20 AM
Whoops, correction:

Moduli of elasticity and deflection are measures of stiffness, not hardness.

So please add Brinell or Rockwell C tests to the specification.

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 10:20 AM
Well what does the court or dictionary define as "hard" or "hard sided"?

Does the material have to have a modulus of elasticity greater than XXX MPa?

Must it exhibit less than YY.Y mm of deflection when subjected to ZZ.Z N of force?

Is a padded duck-cloth rug hard enough?

Is an injection molded MTM/Dosko/Plano/Flambeau case hard enough?

Is a stamped steel lock box hard enough?

Is a .250" thick enclosure made of carbide with a titanium nitride coating hard enough?

That would be hard, but brittle and susceptible to shattering on impact.

As would porcelain, which is hard, but would the courts consider it tough enough?

So is there also a toughness requirement on the container material? Must score a WW.W on the Izod impact test?

That would be a sight to see, huh? If the Penal Code actually specified all this. Maybe UL should create a Secure Locked Container standard.

Unless you physically present a challenge the magnitude of what you posted here to the ruling or the law itself, the courts will rely on much simpler criteria, and they often borrow it from other laws or codes that fit the occasion.

packnrat
08-07-2010, 11:44 AM
can anybody show a container that can not be opened with out destroying something or defeating a part of the item, or by dissembling / destroying the locking part??

even a determent monkey can get into most anything man portable used to carry a gun or other important item in.


:TFH:


.

Librarian
08-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Okay, now I'm confused. My range bag (soft shell, not hard shell) has two lockable pouches on each side of the bag that were specifically meant to hold my pistols. And by lockable, I mean each pouch has two zippers that you can lock together with a padlock. So my soft-shell range bag with the built-in lockable gun pouches does not constitute a locked container when I take it to the range? Even though this is what it was specifically made for?

Hang on for a bit, and let AyatollahGondola find the case he talked about.

Until I heard about a ruling that 'soft sided was not secure' I would have suggested that your case should be OK. New facts may change that opinion.

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 12:14 PM
I've sent an email to that original source, as my reference has not handily turned up. I can tell you I was stopped and had my handgun in one of those old heavy duty cloth bank bags which also has a strong zipper and barrel lock. The officer that stopped me did not cite me for that, but did advise that bag was not sufficient, and that's when I went looking. I remember finding the case law in the daily journal as pointed out by the CHP, a publication of recent court activity in California. I do not subscribe to that anymore, so I don't have as easy access to it now. I will be at the law library during the week, and that's the place to find it.

Sgt Raven
08-07-2010, 1:11 PM
I did read some case law on this subject, and judge had ruled that a soft sided case was not secure. It's been a few years, so I'll have to think about it to jog the memory. I had the ruling pointed out to me by a retired CHP who sold guns as a side business back then. I did read it, and found no appeal beyond it.

Unless it is a ruling from an appeals court or higher then that ruling has standing in the court that made it only. Lots of Judges rule wrongly on the law and they don't always get appealed. :rolleyes:

joedogboy
08-07-2010, 1:56 PM
Perhaps someone is getting confused by the FAA/TSA "locking hard case" standard required for transporting firearms on commercial aircraft?

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 2:17 PM
Perhaps someone is getting confused by the FAA/TSA "locking hard case" standard required for transporting firearms on commercial aircraft?

No; I don't remember anything related to crossing state lines, air travel, trains, nothing like that. I haven't been on a plane since '92 or so, and I'm fairly sharp at details like that anyway. It was a car or truck.
I was amazed at how much there is out there today regarding hard cases in shipping guns on planes. I don't remember finding anything in regards to that back at the time

Unless it is a ruling from an appeals court or higher then that ruling has standing in the court that made it only. Lots of Judges rule wrongly on the law and they don't always get appealed.

I'm at a loss to tell you which court it was at present. Maybe it was a local ruling in a superior court, but I'd surely pay attention to the above related federal requirements because state judges would probably have no problem leaning on their definitions, especially because they are transportation related.

destro360
08-07-2010, 2:38 PM
its all in the title ;)S0YZTYci5yo&feature=av2n

Sniper3142
08-07-2010, 3:51 PM
I'll be blunt

I could care less if AyatollahGondola or anyone else comes up with something saying a soft case isn't considered a locked container.

And I could care less if a cop I run into thinks the same.

I know that none of the soft cases I use can be opened using that method shown in the youtube video.

I don't live in fear or with a tinfoil hat on.

:mad:

Come correct or not at all.

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 4:09 PM
I'll be blunt

I could care less if AyatollahGondola or anyone else comes up with something saying a soft case isn't considered a locked container.

And I could care less if a cop I run into thinks the same.

I know that none of the soft cases I use can be opened using that method shown in the youtube video.

I don't live in fear or with a tinfoil hat on.

:mad:

Come correct or not at all.

Well, there's always that. Although I don't know how it was related to living in fear in the first place.

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 4:10 PM
its all in the title ;)

I don't get that one

Meplat
08-07-2010, 4:55 PM
This discussion is a bit distressing. I think we are buying trouble for ourselves. I’m no lawyer but I do know that ‘intent’ is often one of the elements needed to make something a crime. We have just planted a seed of knowledge that we may have been better off leaving dormant, especially on a public forum.

Another observation is that with a zipper that flimsy it does not need to be a double pull zipper for that trick to work.

This topic has been thrashed about on this forum numerous times, :beatdeadhorse5:and a number of absolutely top notch gun lawyers monitor and at times post here. I cannot help but believe that if indeed any meaningful case law existed concerning soft v hard cases, we would not have to wait for a chance encounter with a retired CHP to become informed.

WWDHD?
08-07-2010, 5:00 PM
i would like to say I'm sorry for mocking the idea that a padlocked backpack of aveage to good quality was not strong enough to legaly carry a handgun (unloaded) to the range. The original poster was just trying to help people avoid the focus of Big Bro. I'm even looking at more secure range bags online.

Me and my trained pet wolverine that lives in my Jansport backpack apologize.

Librarian
08-07-2010, 5:06 PM
I'll be blunt

I could care less if AyatollahGondola or anyone else comes up with something saying a soft case isn't considered a locked container.

And I could care less if a cop I run into thinks the same.

I know that none of the soft cases I use can be opened using that method shown in the youtube video.

I don't live in fear or with a tinfoil hat on.

:mad:

Come correct or not at all.

I always encourage people to judge the risk they are willing to assume, and act in their own best interests as they see them.

In a 'clean' case, here's the punishment risk for violating PC 12025 (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/4/2/1/2/s12025) by carrying concealed without CCW and without satisfactorily meeting the requirements of 12026.1/.2 to be exempted:(7)In all cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.To this one must add the probability of an encounter with LEO such that the manner of transport is evaluated, as best as one can guess (I think it's very low).

What the youtube video shows is not the standard. There IS no standard. I wonder on what basis the judge in the court proceeding concluded that some soft case somewhere may have been insufficient - which is why I'd like to see it, and why (I presume) AyatollahGondola is pursuing getting the case info.

BillCA
08-07-2010, 5:27 PM
The definition of Secure does not help much either ...


Word: se·cure
Usage: adjective
1. free from, or not exposed to, danger or harm; safe.
2. dependable; firm; not liable to fail, yield, become displaced, etc., as a support or a fastening: The building was secure, even in an earthquake.
3. affording safety, as a place: He needed a secure hideout.
4. in safe custody or keeping: Here in the vault the necklace was secure.
5. free from care; without anxiety: emotionally secure.
6. firmly established, as a relationship or reputation: He earned a secure place among the baseball immortals.
7. sure; certain; assured: secure of victory; secure in religious belief.
8. safe from penetration or interception by unauthorized persons: secure radio communications between army units.
9. Archaic . overconfident.

Since no man-portable transport case could ever be "free" from harm, sale or unauthorized access (it can always be stolen in toto), we have to look at the definitions to see what may best fit.

1. ...not exposed to danger or harm; safe.
3. Affording safety, as a place
4. In safe custody or keeping
8. Safe from penetration or interception by unauthorized persons

What is the principle reason for the law? There are two likely reasons the legislature wrote the bill the way they did.
a) To prevent access in a moving vehicle to reduce road-rage & drive-by shootings.
b) To secure the firearm against easy access by unauthorized persons.

Thus any case in which you transport a firearm should not be readily opened without the use of the locking device (key, combo, etc.). If you can open it with bare hands, it won't pass muster.

It would be unreasonable to expect any portable container to be able to defeat attempts with cutting tools such as knives, pry bars, bolt cutters, metal shears, power tools and the like. There is a limit to the security of portable cases.

Likewise, there is no specification for the durability of a padlock. If the lock is fitted to the case and closed and the owner tugs the lock to ensure it's latched, it may be possible to pull, twist or slam the lock to open it without resorting to the key or combination. But as long as it latches and does not easily unlatch with a modest tug, most consumers will presume it is secure against casual theft. Thus that $2.95 luggage lock may secure against casual theft, but not withstand a screwdriver attack.

Logically, the court would suggest that as long as the gun is completely enclosed and a locking device used and neither can be easily opened by hand, the carrier has complied with the spirit of the law. Especially when carried in an unreachable area of the the vehicle (trunk, under the rear seat, inside another bag, etc.)

But California courts are often less than logicial.

tonelar
08-07-2010, 5:40 PM
The last time I flew with pistols, TSA did not like that my hard case only had ONE padlock on it (there are two holes 3 inches appart- I assumed you could use either one, they wanted two padlocks). So I unlocked the case threw it into my duffle bag and used the padlock to lock the two zippers together. Problem solved.

This thread was amusing at first, now it's just gotten repetitive. Locking two zippers together was fine before Honda Master Tech discovered a method to challenge convention. As far as I'm concerned it still is.

its all in the title ;)STYX: TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS
HAHA destro360!
I'm guessing people aren't servicing their Hondas
as conscientiously as they did before this financial down turn.

rugershooter
08-07-2010, 8:57 PM
Can't recall from the thousands of threads already on this subject if it was every realized but a small padlock on two zippers of a backpack CAN BE OPENED.

The zipper can be pulled through the zipper-pull even though there is a lock locking them together. Since the bag is flexible you can pull apart between the two zipper-pulls and open the bag.

The only way I have found to solve this is to put a padlock that goes through the bag behind the far zipper-pull. This prevents the zipper from being able to go through the zipper-pull.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CYWyyPhPrko&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CYWyyPhPrko&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="appli

The law simply requires a locked container. It doesn't specify how strong it has to be. Regarding the law, a backpack with a padlock on both zippers like the one in the video is a locked container. It's not a strong locked container, though. Don't confuse the two. Many trigger locks are crap; the trigger can still be pulled with the lock on, but for purposes of the law, they're still trigger locks and fulfill the legal requirements for trigger locks. The same is true of a locked backpack

AyatollahGondola
08-07-2010, 10:10 PM
The definition of Secure does not help much either ...
But California courts are often less than logicial.

On a somewhat related note, I spent a few hours at the state law library friday locating and reading through yet another appeal court decision that, although not related guns, highlighted the courts willingness to make up for the legislatures failings. It revolved around the meaning of the word "processing", along with a particular location, and someone had invested about a hundred K or more defending their case, but ultimately lost. The court wrote about 14 pages on determining what processing meant, and how it applied to this geographical restriction, and in the absence of real legislative direction, borrowed from other sections of the government code, vehicle code, contract code, and then estimated the actual legislative intent. After reading their conclusion, I was just about mystified by the end result in comparison to the plain language of the code as written, it left me somewhat dazed, confused, and a little scared. Apparently I don't know **** after all, and my comprehension of the subject matter I read is actually really bad.
It has to be me, right? Those guys on the bench went to law school, practiced for a few decades, and have credentials as long as a roll of wrapping paper, so they see the real meaning, and I only see what is written.

Anyway, I stuck the bank bag in the closet and bought a hard case back when I read that other ruling. For me, that wasn't a hill worth dying on. Some of you have different circumstances, so if it's important, take it to the bridge. I almost always do that when it is a hill worth dyin' on

Saym14
08-07-2010, 10:34 PM
so what if a solid containers hinges could be defeated. is it no longer a locked container ?

what about a padlock with a combination. only one number off and its still locked? easier to undo than a zipper.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2010, 10:59 PM
Okay I watched the video, my backpack doesn't do that. The one in the video obviously can simply be opened. Get a bag/backpack or other container where you either have to break the zipper, cut into the bag or defeat the lock.

Problem solved!

:thumbsup:

POLICESTATE
08-07-2010, 11:05 PM
OMG I just tried it on my backpack and it does do that. No biggie, I keep my pistol locked in a padded pistol case, oh wait I can do that with it to.

This is disturbing.

SupraMiggs
08-07-2010, 11:26 PM
OMG I just tried it on my backpack and it does do that. No biggie, I keep my pistol locked in a padded pistol case, oh wait I can do that with it to.

This is disturbing.

I just tried it right now also. It was a lot of work manipulating the zipper but it is doable.

Old4eyes
08-08-2010, 9:42 AM
Well let's guess at what the original intent of the law may have been.

I would think the intent was to slow down / prevent drive by shootings and to slow down / prevent shooting of LEO while making a stop.
So if we take that premise, we are not talking about keeping junior with his pen or box cutter out of the backback / softcase.

I believe that is the intent of what the law was for the loaded magazine miasma as well.

As was pointed out, you can go with the soft case (which I think is legal, but that counts for squat in the court) and then possibly invoke an argument with a LEO and then possibly into court. Maybe we should elect leaders who know how to write clear and concise laws. Oops, I forgot, it's the special interest and lobbyists who write the laws. My mistake.

NightOwl
08-08-2010, 10:11 AM
Well let's guess at what the original intent of the law may have been.

I would think the intent was to slow down / prevent drive by shootings and to slow down / prevent shooting of LEO while making a stop.
So if we take that premise, we are not talking about keeping junior with his pen or box cutter out of the backback / softcase.

I believe that is the intent of what the law was for the loaded magazine miasma as well.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

So, if someone is willing to do a drive by, or shoot a cop who is pulling them over, do you really think they'll care about the locked case law? So, that being utterly absurd, who could it be intended to apply to?

AyatollahGondola
08-08-2010, 10:55 AM
Well let's guess at what the original intent of the law may have been..

That's what I was thinking too. When I'm at the law library this coming week, I'll pour through the records from the legislatures work.....if that's actually work anyway

destro360
08-08-2010, 11:33 AM
I don't get that one

well its all in the title.... haha too much time on your hands boss. we could light a hard case on fire with a match but that doesnt make the case illegal. i would more venture to say that with this post you are engaging in borderline "illegal" activity and encouraging others as well as instructing them on how to bypass a law.

POLICESTATE
08-08-2010, 12:41 PM
I just tried it right now also. It was a lot of work manipulating the zipper but it is doable.

On mine it was so easy my 6 year old could do it. However with my soft pistol case if the pistol is inside you can't get it open far enough to get the pistol out.

I think I'm going to look for something more rigid, normally I transport in the soft pistol case with padlocked zipper and then put that in my backpack with the laptop and all my other stuff.

taperxz
08-08-2010, 2:13 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:This discussion is border line ridiculous. Locked is locked. With any small cheap lock you put on a zipper, i can basically use dykes to cut the lock faster than you can compromise that cheap zipper. Soft containers are legal. Any locked container can be compromised with ease. Any lock can be cut with the greatest of ease. The spirit of the law is make sure that you will not be able to just pull out the gun and brandish and simply put it back. When driving it will take some effort and thought in order to get the firearm out of the "locked case"

If you were driving, how easy would it be to compromise that zipper like what was done in the video? Not that easy!! If you were driving and pulled out a pistol and did what was done in the video, your really screwed cause the LEO will see you can't get the gun back in it without unlocking it.

If a gun was locked in the case in the video and an LEO did what was done in the video, he would be conducting an illegal search unless you gave him the key or your showed him you video on how to compromise the zipper. This really is a way out there thread.

bigcalidave
08-08-2010, 2:49 PM
Why is this going on still? Unless the case has very high strength zippers, you can just grab the lock and twist, it'll break right through the zippers, loops, etc. Very few items these days will withstand a hard pull!! Hell, I'm sure if I wanted to I could just rip the case / bag apart with my bare hands.

Locked is locked!

AyatollahGondola
08-08-2010, 2:56 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:The spirit of the law is make sure that you will not be able to just pull out the gun and brandish and simply put it back. When driving it will take some effort and thought in order to get the firearm out of the "locked case".

Where did you get the reference from about the spirit of the law?

j6p2004
08-08-2010, 3:07 PM
I think the significance of this is that someone may be able to remove the gun, do some crime and put it back in and the owner would have absolutely no idea since there won't be any damage or any signs of tampering. A defense attorney might love this.

pullnshoot25
08-08-2010, 3:09 PM
Well let's guess at what the original intent of the law may have been.

I would think the intent was to slow down / prevent drive by shootings and to slow down / prevent shooting of LEO while making a stop.
So if we take that premise, we are not talking about keeping junior with his pen or box cutter out of the backback / softcase.

I believe that is the intent of what the law was for the loaded magazine miasma as well.

As was pointed out, you can go with the soft case (which I think is legal, but that counts for squat in the court) and then possibly invoke an argument with a LEO and then possibly into court. Maybe we should elect leaders who know how to write clear and concise laws. Oops, I forgot, it's the special interest and lobbyists who write the laws. My mistake.

There was no reason for the law, other than wantonly controlling peoply

WWDHD?
08-08-2010, 3:49 PM
I'm going to start practicing ripping phone books in half so then I can build up enough hand strength to rip open my padlocked Jansport backpack. My trained pet wolverine is getting old and I'm not sure I can depend on him to tear through the bag from the inside on command anymore.

Locks are for honest people.

BillCA
08-08-2010, 4:30 PM
so what if a solid containers hinges could be defeated. is it no longer a locked container ?

If you're talking about an external single hinge where the pin can be easily removed and the container open, then ask yourself is it secure? Now, if that pin requires a pair of pliers and you to brace your hand against the box while pulling, it may not be secure but can it be readily opened by hand? Probably not.

If you're talking defeating the hinges with a screwdriver acting like a chisel to pop the aluminum rivets off the case, I'd say it was secure against casual theft or use.


what about a padlock with a combination. only one number off and its still locked? easier to undo than a zipper.

It's still locked, right? I don't believe the statute specifies how secure the combination lock must be (2 digits vs 256 digits). And if you set the lock so it's only one digit "off" being complete then it's still locked.

And before you ask, if the PD finds the case has a padlock with the key inserted in the padlock -- no, that is not going to pass muster, even if the lock is closed.

BillCA
08-08-2010, 4:55 PM
Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.

So, if someone is willing to do a drive by, or shoot a cop who is pulling them over, do you really think they'll care about the locked case law? So, that being utterly absurd, who could it be intended to apply to?

I think the desire was to make it a crime to simply have an easily accessible gun inside the car with you. Think of this as one of those "tools" that CLEOs keep asking for to help reduce violent crime. By essentially declaring that any "unsecured handgun" even partially concealed inside the car is a crime, cops have a new 'crime' to arrest people for and then search the vehicle.

With the law the way it is, a cop spotting a partially concealed handgun can easily classify the motorist as "bad guy". Ironically, however, if your gun is unloaded and plainly visible on the front seat then it's legal.¹ Where gun owners get into trouble is when cops ask if they have any guns/weapons in the car and they admit they do. This is almost like saying "please search my car".

Criminals don't care about locked cases or storage in the glove & utility compartments. They don't care about any laws unless they benefit from them.



¹ I said it was legal. I didn't say it was smart.

AyatollahGondola
08-08-2010, 5:30 PM
All this conjecture as to the intent has really increased my own desire to investigate. Hopefully there is something there to indicate that.

pTa
08-08-2010, 8:33 PM
OMG I just tried it on my backpack and it does do that. No biggie, I keep my pistol locked in a padded pistol case, oh wait I can do that with it to.

This is disturbing.

What's more disturbing is that this is even an issue. Hopfully Cali becomes as free as the other states where good guys can carry whatever they want in whatever manner they want to carry.

Can the OP or another of the chicken little crew change his title to "MIGHT BE" or something less "the sky is falling"?

AyatollahGondola
08-09-2010, 5:26 PM
I did some research on this today, but I ended up following a recent amendment that was referenced in 12026.1, however by the time I followed the references in each book, and realized it was the wrong amendment bill, I ran out of time. The library closes at 4:00:(
And the parking is 2 hour at best. But it looks like the amendment ot eh code is farther back, probably in '86 or farther. I'll look again tomorrow

stix213
08-09-2010, 5:30 PM
You guys scared me for a sec, but none of my bags are that flexible :)

Lone_Gunman
08-09-2010, 8:22 PM
Why on earth would the police even know you were LUCCing? If someone LUCCs in a locked back pack the police would either need permission or a warrant to look inside. Unless you told them you had a pistol in there, and you wouldn't do that would you?

KylaGWolf
08-10-2010, 3:39 AM
From my understanding if the container is able to be manipulated enough where you could pull the trigger than the case may not qualify as a secure container. That being said there are certain types of fanny packs and such that do qualify but I think they are going more for the types of things like normal day planner or anything with a flimsy enough zipper that you can snap it without much effort. I know a normal backpack may not work as a secure container or a military duffel bag.

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 5:38 PM
I was able to retrieve about twenty pages of records relating to the passage of 12026.1. I had to go have some books paged at the state Law Library, and then take what I found there to the State archives and pour through some of their records. In the end, there is some very relevent stuff, although I haven't read it through.

I've got to scan them in, then convert them to...uh....what?
What file types are uploadable on the posts? And what's the file size limit?

HondaMasterTech
08-10-2010, 6:05 PM
Everyone should understand that the point of my posting was simply to share what I found. California has some terribly ridiculous laws when it comes to gun ownership and usage. Some seemlingly honest activities can cause a decent person to be charged and likely convicted of a crime. At no point do I suffer from "chicken little" syndrome or get caught wearing a tinfoil hat.

I personally know people who have at times carried in this manner. Not with the intent to commit a crime against someone else but to simply transport their personal items ( their guns ) somewhere. I would hate to learn that someone was charged with a crime like this. So, I thought it best to warn people of a potential problem with a method of carry that I know some people use which could end up getting one of the good guys in trouble.

If my posting this is as serious a problem as some have suggested and you think my carelessness has done more harm than good, contact the operators of this forum and have this thread removed.

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 7:29 PM
While I was researching document related to the intent of 12026.1 "secure Container" definition, I found a statement that said "the author of the bill hopes to encourage the transport of these weapons locked away from immediate access of the vehicle occupant"

This is in the assembly committee on public safety file, and could easily be found by a prosecutor or an appellate court.

I'm trying to upload the files somewhere, but they were scanned in an are sizeable. I'm working on some way to publicize them

pullnshoot25
08-10-2010, 8:13 PM
Why on earth would the police even know you were LUCCing? If someone LUCCs in a locked back pack the police would either need permission or a warrant to look inside. Unless you told them you had a pistol in there, and you wouldn't do that would you?

Damn straight.

pullnshoot25
08-10-2010, 8:14 PM
I was able to retrieve about twenty pages of records relating to the passage of 12026.1. I had to go have some books paged at the state Law Library, and then take what I found there to the State archives and pour through some of their records. In the end, there is some very relevent stuff, although I haven't read it through.

I've got to scan them in, then convert them to...uh....what?
What file types are uploadable on the posts? And what's the file size limit?

I have a solution for you. PM en route.

Librarian
08-10-2010, 8:16 PM
While I was researching document related to the intent of 12026.1 "secure Container" definition, I found a statement that said "the author of the bill hopes to encourage the transport of these weapons locked away from immediate access of the vehicle occupant"

This is in the assembly committee on public safety file, and could easily be found by a prosecutor or an appellate court.

I'm trying to upload the files somewhere, but they were scanned in an are sizeable. I'm working on some way to publicize them

.PDF - limit is 5 meg.

I'll be an avid reader of what you found (check the user name!) but remember that courts generally go back to 'legislative intent' only when the letter of the law is ambiguous. I won't try to predict how a court might feel about 'secure' and 'locked' as used in 12026.1/.2.

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 8:35 PM
I just tried to upload one of the smaller files here 3.7 meg, and it says I have a smaller limit.

Librarian
08-10-2010, 8:51 PM
I just tried to upload one of the smaller files here 3.7 meg, and it says I have a smaller limit.

Oh. Magic Mod limits? I didn't think that had changed. The other things looked the same.

Is compressed PDF small enough?

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 9:24 PM
Oh. Magic Mod limits? I didn't think that had changed. The other things looked the same.

Is compressed PDF small enough?

There's more places to limit the file upload size than you think. By user, by user group, by file type, by overall forum limit...etc. If they're all not set the same, a smaller one could prevail

I don't know if I can compress it or not. Part of the overall problem is that I don't have a paid for PDF program. I'm using the free one, and that tends to make bigger files than necessary. Add to that the archives downtown print out your selection on some paper that my scanner tends to pick up every microscopic bit and turn it into a file. Should only be a few hundred KB, but one is 8 megs
Geez! So hard to spread good info sometimes :)

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 9:56 PM
OK, so part of the Committee files are uploaded here:

http://publicdocumentdistributors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=519

Not the big one yet though, and that's the one that contains the offending clause I mentioned earlier. I'm going to have to scan that in again in two or three parts so I won't have to change the forum permissions

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 10:22 PM
Ok, they are all uploaded there now.

Librarian
08-10-2010, 10:45 PM
Nice - thank you!

Really interesting - 1986 support for SB 1787 from
CRPA
NRA
Cal Wildlife Federation
Attorney General
and ...

Californians against hanguns violence.

AyatollahGondola
08-10-2010, 10:49 PM
Nice - thank you!

Really interesting - 1986 support for SB 1787 from

Californians against hanguns violence.

I'm sure they feel they were screwed or sold out, just like we do :D

Or, they were a shell org made up by the NRA to give the effort some propriety.

pitchbaby
08-10-2010, 11:59 PM
OK, this is a little like beating a dead horse... but here it goes... First of all, forgive me not including the picture here, I am on an iPad and don't really know how to get the pic here in this post. A link to what I am thinking about can be seen here:

http://www.samsclub.com:80/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=176066&navAction=

This is a heavy duty bag and it has a center section that is enclosed between 2 front pockets and a rear section which is separately padded to hold a laptop. The center pocket is also encased between zippered pockets on each of the sides. It is very secure and impossible to access accept from the top zipper. You would not even be able to feel what is inside the center section by inspecting the bag from the outside.

I know we have established that some LEO's are fishy on soft sided cases, but what does anyone/everyone think of a bag with these features if the center section is locked for firearm carry. Personally, I think it more than satisfies the spirit of the law. Case in point... I once went to a shooting range and realized that one of the cases I brought a couple of handguns in was locked with double locks that I didn't bring a key for. It is a hard plastic 6 sided case. With a little work, I was able to get a full size and a subcompact out of it by prying the sides apart, even with one lock on each side, 2 in total. I was even able to get them back in the case at the end of the day! I honestly don't think I could ever do the same with this backpack if it were locked at the zipper. The center compartment is just way to protected.