PDA

View Full Version : California Penal Code Section 25505


Vic
04-30-2012, 12:36 PM
So, from reading on this forum and from the Calguns wiki, I was lead to believe that as long as a firearm is secured in a locked container or trunk, then there are no problems with leaving it in the vehicle and no restrictions as to which destinations you can travel to with it.

But after reading 25505:

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

It seems as though there are restrictions on destinations. Could someone please clarify this for me and explain why it there are not any?

I also remembered the law stating before that you could only transport to/from shootng ranges, FFL's etc.. Has the wording been changed recently?


Sorry, I've tried my best to search myself but I still can't reach a conclusion.

GrizzlyGuy
04-30-2012, 12:42 PM
See PC 25610 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25610.html), that is a broader exemption for transporting via motor vehicles that does not have destination, purpose or "directly to" restrictions (other than directly to and from the vehicle).

Librarian
04-30-2012, 1:46 PM
As GrizzlyGuy notes, the main difference is 'in a vehicle', 25610, and 'not in a vehicle', 25505.

CitaDeL
04-30-2012, 6:50 PM
The true bonus is that it is transportation to or from any motor vehicle... doesn't even have to be yours. Could be a taxi, a bus, a friends vehicle who happens to be picking you up.;)

GrizzlyGuy
04-30-2012, 8:01 PM
I was thinking a bit more about this, and I no longer understand what 25505 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25505.html) means. Prior to the renumbering, text almost identical to that was part of 12026.2 (the no-motor-vehicle concealed carry exemptions). The scope was different in that it said "In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a)..."

Now that the text stands alone in its own new section 25505, what does "In order for a firearm to be exempted under this article" mean? Or in other words, what is the scope of "this article"?

dantodd
04-30-2012, 8:10 PM
See PC 25610 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25610.html), that is a broader exemption for transporting via motor vehicles that does not have destination, purpose or "directly to" restrictions (other than directly to and from the vehicle).

25601 seems to only apply to concealable firearms.

Oneaudiopro
04-30-2012, 8:49 PM
What does it matter if its locked in your trunk and you're the only one who knows its there?? You can take a cross country tour if you want.

choprzrul
04-30-2012, 8:57 PM
With out probable cause, or a search warrant, how is anyone else ever going to know what is in your locked container? (assuming of course that you are smart enough to keep your yap shut...).

.

Librarian
04-30-2012, 9:12 PM
I was thinking a bit more about this, and I no longer understand what 25505 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25505.html) means. Prior to the renumbering, text almost identical to that was part of 12026.2 (the no-motor-vehicle concealed carry exemptions). The scope was different in that it said "In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a)..."

Now that the text stands alone in its own new section 25505, what does "In order for a firearm to be exempted under this article" mean? Or in other words, what is the scope of "this article"?

The structure is DIVISION 5. CARRYING FIREARMS
25300-26389
CHAPTER 1. Miscellaneous Rules Relating to Carrying Firearms
25300
CHAPTER 2. Carrying a Concealed Firearm
25400-25700
ARTICLE 1. Crime of Carrying a Concealed Firearm
25400
ARTICLE 2. Peace Officer Exemption
25450-25475
ARTICLE 3. Conditional Exemptions
25505-25595
ARTICLE 4. Other Exemptions
25600-25655
ARTICLE 5. Concealed Carrying of Firearm as a Nuisance
25700
So, all the cool little exemptions to violating concealed handgun without LTC in 25510 through 25595 apply only if the handgun is unloaded and in a locked case, per 25505.

CitaDeL
04-30-2012, 10:55 PM
The structure is So, all the cool little exemptions to violating concealed handgun without LTC in 25510 through 25595 apply only if the handgun is unloaded and in a locked case, per 25505.

This would seem to change the character of the legality of LUCC if that is so.

Vic
05-01-2012, 5:54 PM
As GrizzlyGuy notes, the main difference is 'in a vehicle', 25610, and 'not in a vehicle', 25505.

Thank you, I did not know that 25505 was for "non-vehicle" transportation.

Librarian
05-01-2012, 6:02 PM
This would seem to change the character of the legality of LUCC if that is so.

Well, LUCC has never been my favorite idea; I think it has to rely on PC 25595 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25595.html) This article does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful
carrying or transportation of any handgun in accordance with the
provisions listed in Section 16580.
and that strikes me as encouraging 'arguing the law by the side of the road'.

IMO, one might beat charges with that section, but I think the nice arresting officer would still ruin your day.

paul0660
05-01-2012, 6:05 PM
Experts, has this renumbering factually changed the statutes?

I spent hours wrapping my head around the old code with some success, now I am not sure.

Librarian
05-01-2012, 6:36 PM
Experts, has this renumbering factually changed the statutes?

I spent hours wrapping my head around the old code with some success, now I am not sure.

Jason Davis was monitoring, IIRC.

The only thing that came out more obviously, even though it was not new, is the capability do declare large-capacity magazines as 'nuisances' and disposal of them according to law. That seems to be associated with arrests for other behaviors, and I have yet to hear anyone on Calguns say his/her mags were seized and destroyed, at all, much less just for being large-cap.

So, no; the charge to the committee was to make no substantive changes, just organizational changes. Whether that effort made things clearer, I'm not so sure.

GrizzlyGuy
05-02-2012, 7:01 AM
The structure is

Thanks, I was having a 'can't see the forest for the trees' moment and that's what I was missing. Onecle.com is a good resource for showing you the trees (the sections) but not so good at showing you where that tree is located in the forest. Having a map of the forest is more important now than it was before since they've chopped a lot of the sections into smaller pieces.