PDA

View Full Version : Carrying a pistol in a lockable Briefcase


user65
07-26-2012, 7:22 PM
Hi,

Maybe this has been brought up, but I couldn't find it via the search on the forum or google.

I have a briefcase that I use as a pistol case when going back and forth to the range.

I have ammunition inside of the briefcase, a pistol in it's own pistol case, and magazines. The pistol case has it's own lock on it. The briefcase has a lock on it.

My question is, can I legally have this in my vehicle all of the time? I want to have safe access to my firearm in case some looney decides to shoot up people in my vicinity. I want to store it in my backseat if this is all legal.

Thanks in advance.

Veggie
07-26-2012, 7:34 PM
Yes. You went over kill on the locks. You only need 1 lock and as long as the gun isn't loaded you can have loaded magazines right next to it in the locked container.

DannyInSoCal
07-26-2012, 7:36 PM
Yep. Legal.

If the briefcase is locked -

No need to have the sidearm also locked in its own case.

Mags can be with it just not IN the sidearm.

Seconds count....

Librarian
07-26-2012, 7:51 PM
Remember also that the handgun may not be loaded, so mags can have cartridges in them, but the gun cannot.

Yes, you can do that legally.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the risk of theft in the method you describe. Visible temptation is a problem.

user65
07-26-2012, 11:01 PM
Thanks everyone for your help.

I will go ahead and remove the lock from the pistol case. Good to know about being able to keep the magazines next to the firearm, just not in it. I thought I heard somewhere that I needed to keep the pistol in a locked container separate from the ammunition, that's why I threw the extra lock on the pistol case.

I try to keep the briefcase out of viewpoint, generally behind the front seats in the back seats. The rear windows are tinted so it's virtually out of sight.

Thanks again everyone, your input is greatly appreciated.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 11:08 PM
I thought I heard somewhere that I needed to keep the pistol in a locked container separate from the ammunition, that's why I threw the extra lock on the pistol case.

i did it with long guns for a long time for the same reason. Theres a lot of misinformation out there. Our "Librarian" is a true voice of knowledge and he usually provides reference to back his statements *no fault in this case given its ubiquity*

welcome to the "mostly no FUD but if there is it gets corrected fast" zone.

:D

SGTKane
07-27-2012, 8:49 AM
I'm curious to know if there is any case law around this, as an associate of mine is in law enforcement and he swears up and down that loaded magazines and firearms must be kept in separate containers. When I asked him about the PC's he cited 12026, 12025, and 12031 plus People v. Hale. The argument went something like "Hale found that the magazine is considered to be part of the firearm even when separated from the firearm" and so transporting a loaded magazine in the same container as a firearm is a violation of California's transport laws unless you have a CCW.

The logic while convoluted and (in my non-legal opinion) doesn't seem to hold much water, does make sense in a California kind of way. Its the same kind of logic that in Hale finds that "partial concealment is all that is required for a firearm to be concealed" but tells us CCW holders that even partial exposure of a concealed weapon is brandishing.

Ctwo
07-27-2012, 11:01 AM
Remember also that the handgun may not be loaded, so mags can have cartridges in them, but the gun cannot.

Yes, you can do that legally.

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the risk of theft in the method you describe. Visible temptation is a problem.

I have a question about local ordinances/law. For example, some cities or counties have banned the general possession outside of the home/business/range, etc...:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8174447&postcount=4

The law in the above post would seem to ban the carrying of a firearm to/from a firearm retailer, friends house, or just generally, no matter how the arm is transported.

It also seems that the state does not have preemption of that, unless the arm was a "BB gun."

So that would make the OPs action technically illegal in that city, correct?

Librarian
07-27-2012, 12:38 PM
I'm curious to know if there is any case law around this, as an associate of mine is in law enforcement and he swears up and down that loaded magazines and firearms must be kept in separate containers. When I asked him about the PC's he cited 12026, 12025, and 12031 plus People v. Hale. The argument went something like "Hale found that the magazine is considered to be part of the firearm even when separated from the firearm" and so transporting a loaded magazine in the same container as a firearm is a violation of California's transport laws unless you have a CCW.

The logic while convoluted and (in my non-legal opinion) doesn't seem to hold much water, does make sense in a California kind of way. Its the same kind of logic that in Hale finds that "partial concealment is all that is required for a firearm to be concealed" but tells us CCW holders that even partial exposure of a concealed weapon is brandishing.

Wiki time: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Defining_loaded_in_California , especially the training materials section.

The issue is 'is the gun loaded in public?' Your associate is poorly trained.

Librarian
07-27-2012, 12:47 PM
I have a question about local ordinances/law. For example, some cities or counties have banned the general possession outside of the home/business/range, etc...:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8174447&postcount=4

The law in the above post would seem to ban the carrying of a firearm to/from a firearm retailer, friends house, or just generally, no matter how the arm is transported.

It also seems that the state does not have preemption of that, unless the arm was a "BB gun."

So that would make the OPs action technically illegal in that city, correct?

To take that ordinance literally - Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person shall have in his possession within this cityno one can have one in his home or pass through the city (but I don't see the 'otherwise provided', and that single post doesn't say what city it's for, so can't go look). There's no exception for use in self-defense or for LTC.

It is my speculation that such an ordinance would not withstand challenge. Might be uncomfortable and expensive meanwhile.

Ctwo
07-27-2012, 1:16 PM
To take that ordinance literally - no one can have one in his home or pass through the city (but I don't see the 'otherwise provided', and that single post doesn't say what city it's for, so can't go look). There's no exception for use in self-defense or for LTC.

It is my speculation that such an ordinance would not withstand challenge. Might be uncomfortable and expensive meanwhile.

Elsewhere in that thread, it is suggested Menlo Park, and that would seem to be the entire chapter (Chapter 8.32):

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/menlopark/

The usual exceptions are listed in the post, so you can posses in your home/business, but not pass through unless you are specifically going to a range/hunting, etc.

It is just a point to the OP, how many local/city ordinances does one have time to study to know what is really legal...I'm sure such laws are common throughout metropolitan areas of the state.

I do not see any reason why the ordinance would not stand up or what are the consequences of violation...

Dantedamean
07-27-2012, 2:35 PM
I like my locking day planner. Carry it everywhere... :cool:

http://i1214.photobucket.com/albums/cc486/wazdat/LUCC.jpg

Perfect dude.

Dantedamean
07-27-2012, 4:14 PM
Ok ive been researching this for the last few hours and found this

26405. Section 26400 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying
of an unloaded firearm that is not a handgun in any of the following
circumstances:

(c) When the firearm is either in a locked container or encased
and it is being transported directly between any place
places where a person is not prohibited from
possessing that firearm and the course of travel shall include only
those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably
necessary under the circumstances.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1527_bill_20120307_amended_asm_v98.html

Im guessing this was not the exact wording of this bill?

Librarian
07-27-2012, 4:54 PM
26400 is the 'not in a vehicle' law. 'in a vehicle' does not have destination restrictions unless it is a RAW.

Sorry - tough to do this right from a phone.

In a vehicle transport is governed by PC 25610 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25610.html) (a) Section 25400 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not prohibited by state
or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm, from transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that
the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with the provisions listed in Section 16580.No destination requirements.

25505 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25505.html) is for NOT in a vehicle 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.


Please refer to the wiki article on transporting - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Transporting

cosmos7
07-27-2012, 9:03 PM
Wiki time: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Defining_loaded_in_California , especially the training materials section.

The issue is 'is the gun loaded in public?' Your associate is poorly trained.

It's true... even the CHP acknowledge it right on their website...


http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

Q: I will be traveling to California and want to carry my weapon. I currently have a concealed weapon permit. How can I legally transport my weapon while driving through the state?

A: California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.

Liberty1
07-28-2012, 1:52 PM
Know your 4th A, and don't consent to searches!

Glock22Fan
07-29-2012, 4:47 PM
26400 is the 'not in a vehicle' law. 'in a vehicle' does not have destination restrictions unless it is a RAW.

Sorry - tough to do this right from a phone.

In a vehicle transport is governed by PC 25610 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25610.html) No destination requirements.

25505 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/25505.html) is for NOT in a vehicle

Please refer to the wiki article on transporting - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Transporting

Note that PC 25610 refers to citizens. Legal residents should not, but may, have a problem here.

There may also be a problem when out of the car with "for any lawful purpose ." You might need to prove that having it available for self defense, albeit locked and unloaded, is lawful when, for example, you are minding your own business in Starbucks. Some of us seem to think this is OK, but I would not put it past some D.A.'s to challenge this, and it would cost a bunch to fight.

P.S. I'd love somebody to prove me wrong on this.

SilverTauron
07-29-2012, 5:41 PM
Long story short,its akin to the Unlawful Use of a Weapon debacle in IL:it may be legal to waltz about with a locked handgun with loaded mags in the case,but its also legal for the DA to charge you with a felony if they find out you did so.

It should be noted that if a citizen conducts themselves properly at a traffic stop,the police won't even know there's a weapon present.

Librarian
07-29-2012, 7:16 PM
Long story short,its akin to the Unlawful Use of a Weapon debacle in IL:it may be legal to waltz about with a locked handgun with loaded mags in the case,but its also legal for the DA to charge you with a felony if they find out you did so.

It should be noted that if a citizen conducts themselves properly at a traffic stop,the police won't even know there's a weapon present.

Not for a first offense in CA - CCW without LTC is a misdemeanor, except in limited circumstances.