PDA

View Full Version : Can you continually carry a handgun in your trunk?


Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 5:14 PM
I was reading the following FAQ on Calgunlaws.com :

http://www.calgunlaws.com/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=5&categories=Possessing+and+Transporting#50

One of the FAQs pertains to whether you can continually carry a gun in your trunk or in a locked case in your car. The FAQ responds that you cannot do this and that "Penal Code Section 12026.1 applies only while going to or from the specific places, and for the specific purposes, identified in Penal Code Section 12026.2 (going hunting, to or from a range, etc.)." Calguns.net FAQ.

But as I read 12026.1(a)(1), it says that 12025 doesn't apply if the gun is locked in your trunk, or in a case. Shouldn't that be the end of the analysis?

12026.2, which talks about transporting guns to specified activities, seems irrelevant to this analysis.

It seems to me you can carry a gun in your trunk or in a locked case.

12026.1:

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

Thus I conclude:

12026.1(a)(1) states that 12025 doesn't apply to gun in a locked case or trunk in a motor vehicle.

12026.1(a)(2) addresses carrying the gun to or from a motor vehicle and doesn't apply to the gun being in the vehicle (not relevant to this issue).

12026.2 addresses transporting to specified activities, again not relevant whether you can simply have a handgun in your trunk or in a locked case in your auto.

Am I missing something or does Calgunlaws.com have it wrong in this instance?

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2007, 5:18 PM
I'm constantly "going to" or "returning from"........at least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 5:20 PM
3 little letters than mean soooooo much...including freedom:

CCW

hoffmang
10-31-2007, 5:30 PM
The direct answer to your question is, "no", you can not always drive around with an unloaded handgun in your trunk as a matter of law. A practical matter may be different but I don't recommend it. If this is something you want to do invest in a rifle or shotgun for your trunk. It is fully clear that you can keep an unloaded rifle or shotgun in the trunk all the time.

-Gene

Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 5:45 PM
The direct answer to your question is, "no", you can not always drive around with an unloaded handgun in your trunk as a matter of law. A practical matter may be different but I don't recommend it. If this is something you want to do invest in a rifle or shotgun for your trunk. It is fully clear that you can keep an unloaded rifle or shotgun in the trunk all the time.

-Gene


Can you explain why? Even the Attorney General's website seems to say it's okay:

Traveling with Firearms in California
HANDGUNS
California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not lawfully prohibited from firearm possession, and who resides or is temporarily in California, from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person provided the firearm is unloaded and stored in a locked container.

The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 5:54 PM
because in Cali-- with pistols...much like AW's you need to have a DESTINATION that is legal to have the pistol at....in that you must be coming or going to that location in order for you to 'travel' with it.

Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 6:08 PM
because in Cali-- with pistols...much like AW's you need to have a DESTINATION that is legal to have the pistol at....in that you must be coming or going to that location in order for you to 'travel' with it.

Do you have a cite or an authority for the proposition that you have to have destination?

Even the California Highway Patrol appears to share my view (from an FAQ on their website):

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?

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.

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

They don't mention that you need to have a destination.

Librarian
10-31-2007, 6:15 PM
The persistent problem in my mind is that ALL OF 12026 applies, pretty much at the same time.

Can't just stop at 12026.1; if you do, you need to explain why 12026.2 is there in the PC.

So

get CCW
open carry, and understand this could bring about some interest from observant LEO - but 12025 regulates CONCEALED weapons only
carry a long gun
carry a concealed handgun in your trunk, and estimate the risk vs the benefit


As to the CHP 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?That's 'driving from Arizona through California to Oregon', not 'driving every day to work' unless you work at a place where you can legally carry or shoot.

Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 6:33 PM
The persistent problem in my mind is that ALL OF 12026 applies, pretty much at the same time.

Can't just stop at 12026.1; if you do, you need to explain why 12026.2 is there in the PC.

So

get CCW
open carry, and understand this could bring about some interest from observant LEO - but 12025 regulates CONCEALED weapons only
carry a long gun
carry a concealed handgun in your trunk, and estimate the risk vs the benefit


As to the CHP That's 'driving from Arizona through California to Oregon', not 'driving every day to work' unless you work at a place where you can legally carry or shoot.

I see your points, but I don't agree with your legal interpretation of the statute, or the CHP inquiry. Just off the top off my head, I know statutes are to be construed in favor of the accused. This statute says it's okay to carry a handgun in your trunk. The AG and CHP appear to condone such an interpretation.

Maybe there's a case out there.

Are there any gun lawyers who can weigh in?

Librarian
10-31-2007, 6:47 PM
I see your points, but I don't agree with your legal interpretation of the statute, or the CHP inquiry. Just off the top off my head, I know statutes are to be construed in favor of the accused. This statute says it's okay to carry a handgun in your trunk. The AG and CHP appear to condone such an interpretation.

Maybe there's a case out there.

Are there any gun lawyers who can weigh in?
You a lawyer? Me neither.

It's pretty clear the Legislature does not want people carrying without CCW. If you want to risk interpreting the law in a different way, I think you really need that lawyer.

So far as I can tell, there is no case law on this; I think it's just unknown. I don't think the risk is worth it, especially when you can toss an SKS in the trunk, have a more effective, longer-ranged weapon, and avoid the whole concealable/concealed handgun issue.

Your evaluation of the risk may be different from mine. If it is, I hope you're correct.

But I'm not betting that way.

Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 6:51 PM
You a lawyer? Me neither.

It's pretty clear the Legislature does not want people carrying without CCW. If you want to risk interpreting the law in a different way, I think you really need that lawyer.

So far as I can tell, there is no case law on this; I think it's just unknown. I don't think the risk is worth it, especially when you can toss an SKS in the trunk, have a more effective, longer-ranged weapon, and avoid the whole concealable/concealed handgun issue.

Your evaluation of the risk may be different from mine. If it is, I hope you're correct.

But I'm not betting that way.

No, my deal is I want to have my gun in the trunk so that I can go to the range at lunch or after work without having to deal with any "directly transporting" language in 12026.2.

You know what-- I'm gonna write the AG and ask for a legal opinion.

oaklander
10-31-2007, 6:54 PM
This is a good book on the topic:

How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail: What You Need to Know About the Law If You Own a Gun or Are Thinking of Buying One : California Edition

http://www.amazon.com/How-Own-Gun-Stay-Jail/dp/0964286432

As I recall, he says the same thing (you can only have a handgun in your car if you are going to or coming from certain places).

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 7:00 PM
Do you have a cite or an authority for the proposition that you have to have destination?

Even the California Highway Patrol appears to share my view (from an FAQ on their website):

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?

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.

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

They don't mention that you need to have a destination.

From the Dangerous Weapons laws


12026.2. (a) Section 12025 does not apply to,
or affect, any of the following:


and then everything there pretty much includes TRAVEL TO AND FROM those legal places

but backing up to ~25

12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or
affect any citizen of the United States or legal resident
over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily
within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, who carries, either openly or
concealed, anywhere within the citizen's or legal
resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the
citizen or legal resident any pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(b) No permit or license to purchase, own,
possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed,
shall be required of any citizen of the United States or
legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is
temporarily within this state, and who is not within the
excepted classes prescribed by Section 12021 or
12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, to purchase, own,
possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed, a
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person within the citizen's or legal
resident's place of residence, place of business, or on
private property owned or lawfully possessed by the
citizen or legal resident.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as
affecting the application of Section 12031.
12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be
construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States
over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily
within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this
code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, from transporting or carrying any
pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person, provided that the following
applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it
is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container
in the vehicle other than the utility or glove
compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly
to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose
and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained
within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not
prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or
transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container"
means a secure container which is fully enclosed and
locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or
similar locking device.





so back to ~26.... and everything there....in accordance with the rest of the chapter.......... everything involving travel includeds a legal destination..........

...and nothing specifically states you can "just drive around with one"

about the best I can do.

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 7:09 PM
12026.2. (a) Section 12025 does not apply to,
or affect, any of the following:

(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.


and there she pretty much is.........

Librarian
10-31-2007, 7:11 PM
You know what-- I'm gonna write the AG and ask for a legal opinion.
You might luck out, but typically they pass the buck, saying 'There are 58 counties in California, each with its own District Attorney ...'. They conveniently ignore that the AG is supposed to provide guidance to those 58, so the state laws might, you know, be enforced consistently.

Can't hurt to ask, so long as you don't get your hopes too high. The DOJ firearms people are usually pretty helpful with easy stuff - when did this take effect, how many of these crimes were reported, that kind of thing.

Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 7:19 PM
and there she pretty much is.........

You're quote applies to 12026.2, but I'm saying that 12026.1 already says that a handgun in your trunk doesn't fall under 12025. Keep in mind, the statute under which you're prosecuted is 12025.

12026.2 lists a bunch of exemptions for a 12025 prosecution. However, 12026.1 lists the greatest exemptions of them all-- a gun in your trunk!

Are the statutes screwed up? Sure! But I don't think the 12026.2 trumps 12026.1.

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 7:27 PM
You're quote applies to 12026.2, but I'm saying that 12026.1 already says that a handgun in your trunk doesn't fall under 12025. Keep in mind, the statute under which you're prosecuted is 12025.

12026.2 lists a bunch of exemptions for a 12025 prosecution. However, 12026.1 lists the greatest exemptions of them all-- a gun in your trunk!

Are the statutes screwed up? Sure! But I don't think the 12026.2 trumps 12026.1.


:confused: 26.2 does not exempt 26.2...it talks about what 12025 exemptions are there for 12025.

26.1 are exemptions also but "Everything in this chapter" phrase comes to mind.

You MIGHT be right, but that fancy footwork might still get the gun taken or a night in jail while you wait to argue it out in court.

I'm with Librarian. Try a letter- but dont be surprised by thier unwillingness to directly say....anything.

maybe you missed the second post of mine so here it is again


12026.2.
(a) Section 12025 does not apply to,
or affect, any of the following:

(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.

five.five-six
10-31-2007, 7:30 PM
hmm, it is deer season and I keep, my tag, deer rifle, upland game bird gun, dressing and hunting stuff... oh and my side arm in my trunk all the time. never know when I might get the hankering to go hunting :) also I am normaly driveing from home to work and it is legal for me to have my handgun at home and it is legal for me to have my handgun at work..

(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.

hmmm, the way I read this, I can not carry a handgun to or from my car in order to rob a bank, do a murder or any other unlawful purpose.

Python2
10-31-2007, 7:31 PM
In my opinion, the answer to the question on this thread is a big NO.

LAK Supply
10-31-2007, 7:47 PM
In my opinion, the answer to the question on this thread is a big NO.

That really depends on the situation. For some it would be a big yes.... :chris:

Glock22Fan
10-31-2007, 7:55 PM
One thing I think nobody has mentioned - I understand that you have a CCW, but you don't live in California (?) In this case, your CCW must be an out of state CCW and you should be aware that there are no out-of-state permits that are recognized in California.


http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f130

Librarian
10-31-2007, 8:03 PM
Just as a matter of construction of statutes, it seems to me and my lack of legal education that a group of statutes [ e.g. 26, 26.1, 26.2 ] is supposed to be taken as all one piece. That's why I'm pretty sure you can't just stop with 12026.1.

But that's a legal formalism argument, and I'm not qualified to defend it. It's too late tonight, but I think I'll wander over to the main library tomorrow and see what West's has to say.

I do strongly believe that in context of something in the Dangerous Weapons Control Law, 'chapter' or 'title' means PC 12000 - 12999.999

Shotgun Man
10-31-2007, 8:08 PM
Just as a matter of construction of statutes, it seems to me and my lack of legal education that a group of statutes [ e.g. 26, 26.1, 26.2 ] is supposed to be taken as all one piece. That's why I'm pretty sure you can't just stop with 12026.1.

But that's a legal formalism argument, and I'm not qualified to defend it. It's too late tonight, but I think I'll wander over to the main library tomorrow and see what West's has to say.

I do strongly believe that in context of something in the Dangerous Weapons Control Law, 'chapter' or 'title' means PC 12000 - 12999.999

I look forward to your response. I, too, will attempt to search for relevant cases tomorrow. But I think I'm totally on the right on this issue.

LAK Supply
10-31-2007, 8:17 PM
One thing I think nobody has mentioned - I understand that you have a CCW, but you don't live in California (?) In this case, your CCW must be an out of state CCW and you should be aware that there are no out-of-state permits that are recognized in California.


http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f130

If you're referring to me you would be incorrect.... I do not have a CCW. When I do have one (6 month wait for CCW when you're a new resident) I am aware that it is not valid in CA as CA does not honor any other states' permits.

I was referring to the several ways around the law for keeping a firearm in your vehicle, and to the people who live in the CCW friendly areas of CA. Hunting and fishing licenses go a long way.... it is up to them to prove that you are not hunting or fishing and that you had no intention of hunting or fishing.

It is also up to them to prove that you had no intention of going to the range... when I lived in CA I carried a firearm most days unloaded in a locked box under my rear pickup seat. The mag was sitting up front in the center console.... perfectly legal as long as I have a purpose for doing so. Since there was a range on the way home I was "going to the range" every day. Most days I changed my mind on the way home as I was tired from working all day.... ;)

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2007, 8:30 PM
Since there was a range on the way home I was "going to the range" every day. Most days I changed my mind on the way home as I was tired from working all day.... ;)

That's what I do too! The nearest range to me is about 350 yards from my office, just on the otherside of the freeway. Somedays, I just end up being too tired and decide that it would be best if I didn't shoot that day. So, I go straight home.

Librarian
10-31-2007, 8:42 PM
That's what I do too! The nearest range to me is about 350 yards from my office, just on the otherside of the freeway. Somedays, I just end up being too tired and decide that it would be best if I didn't shoot that day. So, I go straight home.Seems to me that if you have this much of a 'fig leaf' you should be fine.

And as hard as it has been to find any case law, I suspect there just are not many arrests on 12025 that are not also 'felon in possession' or something else.

CSACANNONEER
10-31-2007, 9:05 PM
Seems to me that if you have this much of a 'fig leaf' you should be fine.

And as hard as it has been to find any case law, I suspect there just are not many arrests on 12025 that are not also 'felon in possession' or something else.

I'm sure that it helps that I have a gun safe at my office AND I usually keep a current paycheck stub (from my second job) in my truck. I work PT at the range! I really think that I'm covered with the "to or from" wording.

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 9:20 PM
I was referring to the several ways around the law for keeping a firearm in your vehicle, and to the people who live in the CCW friendly areas of CA. Hunting and fishing licenses go a long way.... it is up to them to prove that you are not hunting or fishing and that you had no intention of hunting or fishing.


BINGO!

And THAT is what I have argued many a time...but then again it only works for part of the year for part of the time. Having a deer permit for X3A wayyyyyyyyy up north and you're in LA heading SOUTH...I dont think its gonna fly; nor if its not deer season. A year round pig tag might get you SOME milage...but then again.... Tuesday night at 11pm heading INWARD further into the Bay Area aint gonna fly neither. Nor having a .50 Desert eagle and trying to politly explain to the East Paloto Police that you're hunting 'coon on a Friday night at midnight when the area's closed to night hunting.........

The hunter exemption IS a huge one...but it too has its limitations. So too even does CCW (ie State refuges, Prisons, Courthouses, airports, bars, etc..) Soooooooo, short of being LEO........ you have to work WITHIN those exemptions unless there is something specifically stating that you MAY do something. Pretty much that entire code is A=Illegal unless to fall into catagory X1, X2 etc...... and HAVING a gun at a residence or your place of biz, or any of the legal locals is OK...And so is going home...But ---- But SHORT OF COMING OR GOING TO ONE OF THOSE PLACES...or falling into one of the exemptive clauses....I dont see you can drive around with one...........

Dont worry. This thread will most likely make evidence #2A right after the gun they took off you for evidence if you're wrong, especially the part where everyone is saying it dont look legal......

So whatever you do: get an attorney's take on this LONG BEFORE you choose to go this route (if you do) as I'm sure our hearts & prayers will be with you if you're wrong and end up in the pokie....but it wont be us in the pokie trying to rationalize why bubba's looking at you all pretty like:eek:


Just WAYYYYYYYYYYY to many Cops episode I guess...count me among the disbelieving that Cali law left this area of Law outta the books.

LAK Supply
10-31-2007, 9:24 PM
You forgot the fishing license.....The fishies are out year round..... ;)


BINGO!

And THAT is what I have argued many a time...but then again it only works for part of the year for part of the time. Having a deer permit for X3A wayyyyyyyyy up north and you're in LA heading SOUTH...I dont think its gonna fly; nor if its not deer season. A year round pig tag might get you SOME milage...but then again.... Tuesday night at 11pm heading INWARD further into the Bay Area aint gonna fly neither. Nor having a .50 Desert eagle and trying to politly explain to the East Paloto Police that you're hunting 'coon on a Friday night at midnight when the area's closed to night hunting.........

The hunter exemption IS a huge one...but it too has its limitations. So too even does CCW (ie State refuges, Prisons, Courthouses, airports, bars, etc..) Soooooooo, short of being LEO........ you have to work WITHIN those exemptions unless there is something specifically stating that you MAY do something. Pretty much that entire code is A=Illegal unless to fall into catagory X1, X2 etc...... and HAVING a gun at a residence or your place of biz, or any of the legal locals is OK...And so is going home...But ---- But SHORT OF COMING OR GOING TO ONE OF THOSE PLACES...or falling into one of the exemptive clauses....I dont see you can drive around with one...........

Dont worry. This thread will most likely make evidence #2A right after the gun they took off you for evidence if you're wrong, especially the part where everyone is saying it dont look legal......

So whatever you do: get an attorney's take on this LONG BEFORE you choose to go this route (if you do) as I'm sure our hearts & prayers will be with you if you're wrong and end up in the pokie....but it wont be us in the pokie trying to rationalize why bubba's looking at you all pretty like:eek:


Just WAYYYYYYYYYYY to many Cops episode I guess...count me among the disbelieving that Cali law left this area of Law outta the books.

metalhead357
10-31-2007, 9:40 PM
You forgot the fishing license.....The fishies are out year round..... ;)


Oh "we" been down that road too on another thread or three; Same thing... nice exemption for SOME but still not viable in downtown SAC next to the river as discharge of firearms is NOT allowed. There are countless other places that fall to the same <unfair> scrutiny.

But hey...TOTAL guess here; With a hunting licence, a couple tags, a fishing licence..and always...ALWAYS heading ~out of town direction~ if and when you get pulled over......... it just MIGHT work MOST of the time.

But I said MIGHT. I aint going first...You lettme know how it works out now y' hear?;)

fairfaxjim
10-31-2007, 10:36 PM
12025 contains the basic prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon (loaded is another matter and has separate statutes.) 12025.5 provides a "justifiable" violation for "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."

12026 through 12026.2 contain exceptions to 12025. Each one has it's own distinct requirement(s), and, as far as I can determine, is individual and separate from the others.

12026 provides an exemption to 12025 for both citizens and legal residents to cary a concealable firearm in THEIR residence, place of business, or upon THEIR private property, and specifies that no license or permit is required to do so.

12026.1 provids an excepton to 12025 for a CITIZEN OVER THE AGE OF 18, who is not otherwise prohibited, for "transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device."
It does not require any other special action or circumstance to be valid. It is specifically for motor vehicle transport.

12026.2(a)(1) - (a)(20) provides 20 distinct actions that allow exception to 12025. While 12026.1 specifies "motor vehicle" transport, each of these are event specific. The only reference to motor vehicle transport would be in 12026.2(d), where the "utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle" is excluded from being a "locked container."
In all cases the concealable firearm must be carried in compliance with 1026(b) - (d):
(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.
(c) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.
(d) 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 term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.

These 12026.2 exceptions make no reference to citienship or residence. These are spearate and distinct from the vehicle concealed travel requirements of 12026.1, although they have similar (nearly exactly the same) requirements. If 12026.1 was not separable from 12026.2, then non citizens would have no circumstances where concealed carying of a concealable firearm would be lawful except for the places specified in 12026. The exceptions in 12026.2 also are restricted to a "course of travel" than has "only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances. "

Based on the separately stated requirements, I would feel comfortable carying unloaded and in the trunk or "locked container" at any time. If I were not a citizen, I would only be comfortable doing so while in the course of one of the 12026.2 exceptions.

I am not an attorney, so feel free to have your own interpretation of these goofy laws.

Piper
10-31-2007, 10:47 PM
As far as I'm concerned, a specific destination could be going to or coming from a friends house. Also stopping at a grocery store isn't illegal before going to your final destination. As a police officer, I would never hassle someone for being in legal possession of a legally owned concealable firearm. Of course I was far more lenient than others.

bwiese
10-31-2007, 11:11 PM
A noted Norcal gun attorney tells me he knows of no cases (admittedly offhand, no Lexis/Nexis, etc.) where someone who had a locked/unloaded handgun or (2) a locked/unloaded registered AW were popped for 'specific destination' criteria.

That doesn't mean they don't apply.

But this is a case where "how you answer" and even "how you look" can get you outta scrapes.

Don't ever hinder an investigation by giving false information to cop. Better to say nothing. But you are welcome to be always on your way home or visiting a friend, or going out of state, etc. Hell, I always have a bag w/a couple changes of decenmt clothes with me - and with a demanding-yet-flexible work schedule, who the knows when I might spontaneously decide to go to, say, Reno?

m24armorer
10-31-2007, 11:33 PM
Reno.....

What's that?

FreedomIsNotFree
11-01-2007, 1:32 AM
3 little letters than mean soooooo much...including freedom:

CCW



I disagree. How can CCW mean freedom when you have to ask for permission?

FreedomIsNotFree
11-01-2007, 1:34 AM
A noted Norcal gun attorney tells me he knows of no cases (admittedly offhand, no Lexis/Nexis, etc.) where someone who had a locked/unloaded handgun or (2) a locked/unloaded registered AW were popped for 'specific destination' criteria.

That doesn't mean they don't apply.

But this is a case where "how you answer" and even "how you look" can get you outta scrapes.

Don't ever hinder an investigation by giving false information to cop. Better to say nothing. But you are welcome to be always on your way home or visiting a friend, or going out of state, etc. Hell, I always have a bag w/a couple changes of decenmt clothes with me - and with a demanding-yet-flexible work schedule, who the knows when I might spontaneously decide to go to, say, Reno?

Bingo!

The only way you get charged with any destination offense regarding a legally owned handgun, transported within the law, is if you tell on yourself.

Keep your mouth shut and you should be fine.

smogcity
11-01-2007, 7:31 AM
What about an RV or a VW campervan? would both be considered as "a second home" and a pistol be allowed? Would locked and loaded be legal like in your primarey home or a campsite?

Shotgun Man
11-01-2007, 7:45 AM
What about an RV or a VW campervan? would both be considered as "a second home" and a pistol be allowed? Would locked and loaded be legal like in your primarey home or a campsite?

In my research on 12026.1 I came across a case where a guy had his camper parked within some specified distance of a school ground. The camper was his residence. The cops found a loaded semiauto handgun behind the coach. Trial judge found him guilty of carrying a gun within a "Gun-Free School Zone."

The appeals courts held that the camper did not qualify under the residential exemption. So the guy was hosed. Doesn't seem right, because the vehicle was not even moving, and it was stipulated it was the guy's residence.

So with the camper scenario, you got to be real careful.

People v. Anson
105 Cal.App.4th 22, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 124
Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2002.


BTW, West's annotated statutes doesn't reveal a single case under 12026.1.

code33
11-01-2007, 9:01 AM
You can't simply park a motor home at any location and call it your place of residence.

Google "motorhome automobile exception" and California v. Carney:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0471_0386_ZO.html

See page 9 of the People v. Anson opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/g027960.pdf

The camper was parked on a public street — a place not regularly used for
residential purposes and not zoned for camping. The living area of the cab was separated
from the driver’s seat only by a cloth curtain and thus the contents, including defendant’s
loaded semiautomatic handgun, in the living area were accessible to the driver of the
camper.


Doesn't seem right, because the vehicle was not even moving, and it was stipulated it was the guy's residence.

So with the camper scenario, you got to be real careful.

AJAX22
11-01-2007, 10:02 AM
My father currently lives in a motor home (traveling the US in his retirement years) He occasionally mentions to me that he would like to get a shotgun or handgun to defend his motorhome.

I haven't given him one because I don't know what the laws regarding that whole snaffu are, he is legally a CA resident although he spends alot of his time in oregon, washington and alaska.

my dad's a level headed guy who won't be brawling with the police or getting in fights with neighbors, and I'm prety sure the Ca v Carney scenario of trading Reefer to childeren for BJ's won't be an issue. But I don't want to put my dad in a situation where he could accidentally break the law by driving around the block with a loaded shotgun in the back of the camper. (My dad can be forgetfull when it comes to little stuff)

I was under the impression that a parked motorhome was a residence and not subject to the vehicle exemption..... I guess I was wrong.

Librarian
11-01-2007, 10:58 AM
BTW, West's annotated statutes doesn't reveal a single case under 12026.1.Wouldn't cases be under 12025? I haven't been out yet.

Unfortunately, those would create a lot of 'noise' when looking for 'you're guilty of carrying a concealed weapon because you were not going to/from an approved place' cases.

I think, anecdotally, that 12025 is a nice handle to arrest someone with, and usually it's on-person. The likelihood of in-the-trunk carry being discovered seems to me to be very low.

When I took my NRA Personal Protection class, lo these many years ago, we had a guest instructor for the legal part: Peter Alan Kasler. I bought his book about gun laws. In his annotations at 12026.1 is this: This is how a person who can have a handgun (per 12026, above) can move it between the various places where he or she can lawfully have it. (California Gun Laws, revision of 5/12/94)

Now, PAK is not our favorite (deceased) California gun lawyer because of a Certain Court Decision and Its Implications, but he was a lawyer, specializing in the area, and he put his name and license on the line when he wrote this. (Well, rather weakly, since buying a book doesn't create an attorney-client relationship.) That's what drives my persistent "I don't think that's a very good idea" position.

Until we get a real lawyer's opinion, published where we all can see it, or clearly dispositive case law which settles the issue, I'm going to always caution against taking 12026.1 in isolation. That simply goes against obvious Legislative intent, and while I'm as cognizant of how that is 'gang aft agley' as anyone, thinking 'more restrictive' instead of 'I found a loop hole' makes interpretation a lot easier.

Since the issue is NOT settled, acting in either way, properly informed of both possibilities, should not be a matter of dogma but of estimated risk. I just prefer incurring NO extra risk over some very small but non-zero extra risk.


-----
ETA I started a new thread on the legislative history of 12026.2 - If you can bear the pain, look in there.

hoffmang
11-01-2007, 3:33 PM
Since the issue is NOT settled, acting in either way, properly informed of both possibilities, should not be a matter of dogma but of estimated risk. I just prefer incurring NO extra risk over some very small but non-zero extra risk.

Especially when its clear you can have an unloaded rifle in your trunk.

-Gene

Shotgun Man
11-01-2007, 4:16 PM
Wouldn't cases be under 12025? I haven't been out yet.


I looked there too. I couldn't find anything but dicta (i.e., language not central to the holding of the case) supporting my position. Notably, I found nothing undermining my view either.

metalhead357
11-01-2007, 5:12 PM
I disagree. How can CCW mean freedom when you have to ask for permission?


there IS that... but in a lot of counties it is more like just going through the hoops to secure that freedom...but I hear ya' on the rest of them <BLEEP> counties........

Shotgun Man
11-01-2007, 7:12 PM
12025 contains the basic prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon (loaded is another matter and has separate statutes.) 12025.5 provides a "justifiable" violation for "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."

12026 through 12026.2 contain exceptions to 12025. Each one has it's own distinct requirement(s), and, as far as I can determine, is individual and separate from the others.

12026 provides an exemption to 12025 for both citizens and legal residents to cary a concealable firearm in THEIR residence, place of business, or upon THEIR private property, and specifies that no license or permit is required to do so.

12026.1 provids an excepton to 12025 for a CITIZEN OVER THE AGE OF 18, who is not otherwise prohibited, for "transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm, the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device."
It does not require any other special action or circumstance to be valid. It is specifically for motor vehicle transport.

12026.2(a)(1) - (a)(20) provides 20 distinct actions that allow exception to 12025. While 12026.1 specifies "motor vehicle" transport, each of these are event specific. The only reference to motor vehicle transport would be in 12026.2(d), where the "utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle" is excluded from being a "locked container."
In all cases the concealable firearm must be carried in compliance with 1026(b) - (d):
(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.
(c) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.
(d) 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 term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.

These 12026.2 exceptions make no reference to citienship or residence. These are spearate and distinct from the vehicle concealed travel requirements of 12026.1, although they have similar (nearly exactly the same) requirements. If 12026.1 was not separable from 12026.2, then non citizens would have no circumstances where concealed carying of a concealable firearm would be lawful except for the places specified in 12026. The exceptions in 12026.2 also are restricted to a "course of travel" than has "only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances. "

Based on the separately stated requirements, I would feel comfortable carying unloaded and in the trunk or "locked container" at any time. If I were not a citizen, I would only be comfortable doing so while in the course of one of the 12026.2 exceptions.

I am not an attorney, so feel free to have your own interpretation of these goofy laws.

I neglected to say this earlier, but yours seems to be an astute analysis of 2025->12026. I didn't notice the citizenship distinction between 12026.1 and 12026.2. That's a key point that gives a semblance of reason to these otherwise kooky laws.

Librarian
11-01-2007, 9:28 PM
And, as the OLL thing proves, it behooves us to exploit their sloppyness and stupidity. I agree with your and fairfaxjim's analysis: 12026.1 and .2 are independent of each other. 12026.1(1) allows transportation of an unloaded gun in a locked case by car, independent of where and why you are going. If 12026.1 and .2 were tied together, they would have to refer to each other, but they do not.
I'll certainly go with sloppy, but there's a problem: clearly the leg. knew about 12026.1 before 12026.2. If the interpretation is correct, that 12026.2 does not affect transport in accordance with 12026.1, then what does 12026.2 actually do? I agree with your 'far fetched' comment.

See the wikipedia article on statutory interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation) - at least Last in Time
When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails. seems to apply.

allenst65
11-02-2007, 4:05 AM
That's extremely far fetched. What you are really saying here would be: "While US Citizens are allowed to drive around in a car with a gun in a locked case without having to worry where they are going, permanent residents of California (who are in all other respects treated exactly like citizens under CA gun laws) can only drive around with a gun if they are going to an approved destination". That's completely lunatic.

Not sure where you pulled the permanent resident part from, but it doesn't seem far fetched to me. I think the sections are separate and that there was clearly an intent to add exclusions by the way of 12026.2 for non-US citizens and/or specific circumstances.


If the interpretation is correct, that 12026.2 does not affect transport in accordance with 12026.1, then what does 12026.2 actually do?

Easy. Stop reading the overall laws as only restrictive (punitive) measures, and understand that some sections can be added to create specific definitions and protections.

First read the sections with the intent to think of them as completely separate.

12026.1(a) gives clear protection to any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state for vehicular transport or legal transfer to/from said vehicular transport with no destination requirements. End of story. 12026.1(b) acknowledges that there may be other instances for legal carry/transport and prevents (a) from defining the vehicular or to/from instances as the only legal circumstance for carry/transport. Again, broad overall protection for any US citizen in the state.


Now read 12026.2 as a separate issue. Look for key words of events/cimcumstances and ask why did they see the need to add these specific protections?

Immediately in 12026.2 I see:
"motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event",
"a member of any club or organization, organized for the purpose of lawfully collecting and lawfully displaying pistols, revolvers, or other firearms",
"a recognized safety or hunter safety class, or a recognized sporting event involving that firearm",
"... a supplier of firearms when going directly to, or coming directly from, a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event",
"a person going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range."

Now why would they list these types of events and what about the lack of citizen distinction for these specific exclusions? When would a non-US citizen come into CA and need legal protection for carry/transport?

Hmmm ... lots of foreign actors come to make movies in Hollywood ... there were a few world shooters here in the '84 LA Olympics ... some Aussie and Filipino teams at the Steel Challenge ... bet some people come here to hunt or get training ... probably some manufacturers reps selling their goods ... yeah lots of times non-US folks are in CA with a legitimate need to legally transport firearms.

It makes very good sense why these specific instances were added in a secondary section like 12026.2, exclusive of the broad protections offered to US citizens by 12026.1.

Glock22Fan
11-02-2007, 8:57 AM
Would any legal minds like to comment on whether it is legal to distinguish between legal residents and citizens in this regard?

Certainly, the Federal courts have ruled that it makes no difference in CCW law (see Dorsey v. NVPD (1972) and People v. Rappard (1973) (if anyone knows of any links for these cases, I would be glad to have them).

Also, California's alien firearm licensing act was (I am informed) shot down in the 1970's but again I have no details of this.

Shotgun Man
11-02-2007, 12:38 PM
Would any legal minds like to comment on whether it is legal to distinguish between legal residents and citizens in this regard?

Certainly, the Federal courts have ruled that it makes no difference in CCW law (see Dorsey v. NVPD (1972) and People v. Rappard (1973) (if anyone knows of any links for these cases, I would be glad to have them).

Also, California's alien firearm licensing act was (I am informed) shot down in the 1970's but again I have no details of this.

It does seem suspect.

This is from ALR. I've edited it a little for brevity. The pre-1972 version of PC 12021 prohibited aliens from having concealable guns. It was struck down because it denied aliens of equal protection. I assume this is fair use:


"People v Rappard (1972, 2d Dist) 28 Cal App 3d 302, 104 Cal Rptr 535, the court held that a state statute making it unlawful for aliens to own or possess concealable firearms constituted a denial of equal protection of the law under the United States and California Constitutions. The court said that the protection afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment's prohibition against a state's denial of equal protection of the law to "any person" within its jurisdiction extends to aliens as well as to citizens of the United States, and that since classifications based upon alienage are inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny, the court must invoke the following strict standard when receiving a discriminatory statute based upon alienage: not only must the classification reasonably relate to the purposes of the law, but also the state must bear the burden of establishing that the classification constitutes a necessary means of accomplishing a legitimate state interest, and that the law serves to promote a compelling state interest.

The court stated further that the classification of the statute -- alienage -- had no reasonable relationship to the threat to public safety which it was ostensibly designed to prevent and that any classification which treats all aliens as dangerous and all United States citizens as trustworthy rests upon a very questionable basis. The court concluded, therefore, that the state did not sustain its burden of establishing that the classification -- based upon the suspect factor of alienage -- not only promoted a compelling interest which justified the law but that the distinctions drawn by the law were necessary to further its purpose."

If I was alien transporting a firearm in compliance with 12026.1 and charged with a violation of 12025, I would definitely challenge its constitutionality.

Any aliens out there who want to be a test case? :)

Glock22Fan
11-02-2007, 1:08 PM
Thank you, Greg_.

I have updated the relevant faq.
http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/faq.html#f105

If you would like a named credit, please let me know.

Thanks for the data,

Librarian
11-02-2007, 4:34 PM
Stop reading the overall laws as only restrictive (punitive) measures, and understand that some sections can be added to create specific definitions and protections.
In this area, 'more restrictive' is currently the default interpretation. Since this law dates from 1987, maybe 20 years ago the Legislature was not so polarized on this, so I agree that might be worth considering.

First read the sections with the intent to think of them as completely separate.

12026.1(a) gives clear protection to any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state for vehicular transport or legal transfer to/from said vehicular transport with no destination requirements. End of story. 12026.1(b) acknowledges that there may be other instances for legal carry/transport and prevents (a) from defining the vehicular or to/from instances as the only legal circumstance for carry/transport. Again, broad overall protection for any US citizen in the state.


Now read 12026.2 as a separate issue. Look for key words of events/cimcumstances and ask why did they see the need to add these specific protections?

Immediately in 12026.2 I see:
"motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event",
"a member of any club or organization, organized for the purpose of lawfully collecting and lawfully displaying pistols, revolvers, or other firearms",
"a recognized safety or hunter safety class, or a recognized sporting event involving that firearm",
"... a supplier of firearms when going directly to, or coming directly from, a motion picture, television, or video production or entertainment event",
"a person going directly to, or coming directly from, a target range for the purposes of practicing shooting at targets with that firearm at that target range."

Now why would they list these types of events and what about the lack of citizen distinction for these specific exclusions? When would a non-US citizen come into CA and need legal protection for carry/transport?

Hmmm ... lots of foreign actors come to make movies in Hollywood ... there were a few world shooters here in the '84 LA Olympics ... some Aussie and Filipino teams at the Steel Challenge ... bet some people come here to hunt or get training ... probably some manufacturers reps selling their goods ... yeah lots of times non-US folks are in CA with a legitimate need to legally transport firearms.

It makes very good sense why these specific instances were added in a secondary section like 12026.2, exclusive of the broad protections offered to US citizens by 12026.1.

OK - all those things you mention as additional needs were also true in 1986 when 12026.1 was passed. I'm ready to believe in sloppy law writing and even the legislature coming to a more sophisticated understanding - witness, for example, the backtracking on SB23 'assault weapon' classification of Olympic type target pistols (albeit over Perata's loud objections, at first) shows that's possible, even this century.

What's your theory on the differenct treatment of citizens and non citizens?

Wouldn't it be easier to apply the 12026 language 12026. (a) Section 12025 shall not apply to or affect any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state,
(and maybe something about non-citizens) in place of the 12026.1 language 12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and just be done with it?

I hope it's obvious that I'm not asking you to explain the wonderful world inside the minds of legislators. I'm interested to know if you can see any real difference, any benefit to public order or safety, which comes from the distinction - and which therefore makes sense of the theory. (Yes, I am sadly aware that bills don't have to make sense to become law. :( ) People v Rappard was a 1972 case; I'd think the legislative researchers might have turned that up in 1986/1987, if they bothered to look.

duenor
11-03-2007, 11:04 AM
it's too bad that I work in a legally prohibited zone. otherwise, i'd have a remington model 11 semi auto 12g or sks in my trunk at all times. id have a cuff of shells on the mod11 and a quad of strippers on the sks.

but sadly, i have to make do with a positive attitude and my charming speaking abilities.

Liberty1
11-03-2007, 11:48 AM
It's too bad that I work in a legally prohibited zone.

What zone is this? Gun manufacturers can't have firearms on the premises? Or are you thinking of the incorporated city loaded prohibition in 12031?

metalhead357
11-03-2007, 2:25 PM
:confused:I'm guessing either school zone or jail/prison...about the only direct ones that come to mind.....

MudCamper
11-03-2007, 2:49 PM
Can you continually carry a handgun in your trunk?

Yes.

There is no way that a DA will get a conviction on 12025 if you meet the 12026.1 exception. No way.

Now if you are walking, or taking public transit, then 12026.1 does not apply, but 12026.2 does, so you then have the deviation restrictions per 12026.2 in those cases only.

I have a flyer for this very subject that I keep in my car. (http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf)

I recommend carrying this or something similar with you.