PDA

View Full Version : Stupid question: Could my dog carry a concealed weapon?


kurtsea
09-12-2013, 11:27 AM
I was genuinely curious and couldn't find any information online...but is it lawful to have my dog (whom is legally considered property) carry a concealed weapon? In something like this:

http://thatmutt.com/web/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/dog-backpack.jpg


***This is completely hypothetical - I don't even own a dog...yet.***

VictorFranko
09-12-2013, 11:34 AM
Does he have a CCW?

JoefromPA
09-12-2013, 11:39 AM
Could your car legally carry a concealed weapon?

kurtsea
09-12-2013, 11:41 AM
Does he have a CCW?

Nope, neither would I...in this hypothetical. I'm 99% sure the answer is of course not because it would be considered possession of a concealed weapon, but something is swaying me to believe it could be argued another way. Maybe the bag is locked but the gun is loaded and holstered. IDK, mostly bored at work and thought of having a dog carry a firearm for long hikes or something.

the86d
09-12-2013, 11:47 AM
As long as it was unloaded, in a locked container, I assume this is legal, just like a car.

kurtsea
09-12-2013, 11:51 AM
As long as it was unloaded, in a locked container, I assume this is legal, just like a car.

makes sense to me.

VictorFranko
09-12-2013, 12:13 PM
As long as it was unloaded, in a locked container, I assume this is legal, just like a car.

makes sense to me.

But if it's unloaded and in a locked container then it is not considered "a concealed weapon".

nastyhabts26
09-12-2013, 12:27 PM
You pose an interesting question, however I for one wouldn't like to argue that point in a court of law especially here in California.
I do however believe in the right for Canines to keep and bear arms!
Gives a whole new meaning to a protection dog.

nastyhabts26
09-12-2013, 12:27 PM
You pose an interesting question, however I for one wouldn't like to argue that point in a court of law especially here in California.
I do however believe in the right for Canines to keep and bear arms!
Gives a whole new meaning to a protection dog.

taperxz
09-12-2013, 1:52 PM
What good would a dog with an unloaded or even loaded gun be to you?

Sakiri
09-12-2013, 3:18 PM
Aren't there already provisions allowing for open carrying of loaded firearms in the woods for certain activities anyways? I mean hell, I'd feel better being in bear country with a pistol, personally...

mikeyfromsd
09-12-2013, 3:18 PM
http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/article-2282445-182D3726000005DC-478_634x549.jpg

Californio
09-12-2013, 3:41 PM
My dog carries a legal concealed weapon, just ask her to open her mouth, but you have to know the command word:D

radioburning
09-12-2013, 3:47 PM
Is the dog a felon? Does the dog have a history of mental illness?

Librarian
09-12-2013, 4:29 PM
But if it's unloaded and in a locked container then it is not considered "a concealed weapon".

Sure it is - locked unloaded handgun carry is an exemption from prosecution for carry of a concealed weapon in public without LTC. The handgun so carried is still concealed.

I suggest that a dog, being an independent actor with a will of its own (no matter how well trained), would be a poor carrier for a handgun.

Sakiri
09-12-2013, 4:47 PM
Sure it is - locked unloaded handgun carry is an exemption from prosecution for carry of a concealed weapon in public without LTC. The handgun so carried is still concealed.

I suggest that a dog, being an independent actor with a will of its own (no matter how well trained), would be a poor carrier for a handgun.

Unloaded, locked pistol case in your backpack.

I'm almost completely convinced, as an aside, that it's completely impossible to legally carry a firearm openly, NOT concealed. Loaded open carry is illegal practically. Unloaded open carry is illegal practically. Much of this libtarded state so much as sees a handgun they freak the hell out.

VictorFranko
09-12-2013, 5:08 PM
Sure it is - locked unloaded handgun carry is an exemption from prosecution for carry of a concealed weapon in public without LTC. The handgun so carried is still concealed.

For clarification Master (totally meant with respect to your vast knowledge of all things pertinent to life), my comment was in reference to carrying an unloaded weapon in a locked container in a vehilcle.
By legal terminology, is an unloaded weapon in an approved, locked container carried in a vehicle still considered a "concealed weapon"?
How can that be?
The framing hammer I carry is more of a weapon than an unloaded handgun locked in a container...................:confused:

Tincon
09-12-2013, 6:22 PM
Sure it is - locked unloaded handgun carry is an exemption from prosecution for carry of a concealed weapon in public without LTC. The handgun so carried is still concealed.


Carried by whom? The law references carry "upon the person".

The ordinary meaning of “upon his or her person” is on the body or in the clothing worn on the body. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines “on the person” as follows: “In common parlance, when it is said that someone has an article on his person, it means that it is either in contact with his person or is carried in his clothing.” (Black's Law Dict. (6th ed. 1990) p. 1089, col. 2.) In contrast, Black's defines “on or about the person” as follows: “As used in statutes making it an offense to carry a weapon ‘on or about’ the person, it is generally held that the word ‘on’ means connected with or attached to, and that ‘about’ is a comprehensive term having a broader meaning than ‘on,’ and conveying the idea of being nearby, in close proximity, within immediate reach, or conveniently accessible.” (Id., col. 1) Similarly, “person” in this context means “an individual's body” (New Oxford American Dict. (2010) at < http://www.oxfordreference.com> [as of Apr. 16, 2013] ), “the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing” (Merriam–Webster (2013) at <http:// www.merriam-webster.com> [as of Apr. 16, 2013] ). Thus, giving the words of the statute their ordinary and usual meaning, a dirk or dagger inside an adjacent container, such as the backpack upon which defendant was leaning, or even inside a carried container, is not “upon his or her person.” The knives in defendant's backpack may have been on or about defendant's person, but the statute does not criminalize carrying a dirk or dagger on or about the person, only carrying a dirk or dagger “upon” the person.

People v. Pellecer (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 508, 513

I would not actually do this, for a number of reasons, and if I did I would expect to be arrested, but it does not appear that something carried by a dog (particularly if not connected to the person by a leash) would be considered "'upon' the person".

Librarian
09-12-2013, 6:54 PM
Carried by whom? The law references carry "upon the person".



I would not actually do this, for a number of reasons, and if I did I would expect to be arrested, but it does not appear that something carried by a dog (particularly if not connected to the person by a leash) would be considered "'upon' the person".

The crime is 'carrying a concealed firearm' 25400. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
the person does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle that is under the person'
s control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon the person any pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which the
person is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

Within a vehicle is not 'upon the person', but a dog is neither a person nor a vehicle.

I would not be surprised to find a prosecutor arguing 'on a dog' is "under the person's control or direction", but I do not know that such an argument has been made nor its likelihood of success if it were to be made.

But I wouldn't have a dog carry a handgun, either.

Kappy
09-12-2013, 7:02 PM
I'm now considering getting a dog so that I can equip him with a shoulder thing that goes up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AlaskaGuy
09-12-2013, 7:04 PM
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r222/cdwegner/tumblr_mi9xbuepED1r15w5uo1_500_zpsb72649fc.jpg

Just-in
09-12-2013, 7:37 PM
Wouldn't the dog need to be 21?

Sakiri
09-12-2013, 7:57 PM
I'm now considering getting a dog so that I can equip him with a shoulder thing that goes up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I need to get my dog a shoulder thing that goes up.

Tincon
09-12-2013, 7:59 PM
The crime is 'carrying a concealed firearm'

Within a vehicle is not 'upon the person', but a dog is neither a person nor a vehicle.

I would not be surprised to find a prosecutor arguing 'on a dog' is "under the person's control or direction", but I do not know that such an argument has been made nor its likelihood of success if it were to be made.


Right, vehicle has a special rule, I think I misunderstood what you meant where I quoted you. Unless a dog is a "vehicle" though (and according to the VC I don't think it can be) 25400 (a)(1) would not apply. Also, (a)(1) says "within", so unless your dog ate it, it's cool. (a)(2) can't apply either because of "upon the person". So upon the dog should be ok lol.

Tincon
09-12-2013, 8:01 PM
"Sir, are you carrying any weapons?"

"No, but my dog is!"

taperxz
09-12-2013, 8:06 PM
The crime is 'carrying a concealed firearm'

Within a vehicle is not 'upon the person', but a dog is neither a person nor a vehicle.

I would not be surprised to find a prosecutor arguing 'on a dog' is "under the person's control or direction", but I do not know that such an argument has been made nor its likelihood of success if it were to be made.

But I wouldn't have a dog carry a handgun, either.

We may as well go back to the horse debate.

otteray
09-13-2013, 8:01 AM
Wouldn't the dog need to be 21?

A 3 year old dog is at least 21, in dog years. Which would apply?

desrt2
09-13-2013, 4:18 PM
Not my dog. He's just following me.
Looks friendly though. Why don't you pet him?

http://www.buzzpatrol.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun_dog.jpg

http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/machine-gun-dog.jpg

Sakiri
09-13-2013, 7:37 PM
I now want a machine gun dog. Lol

jeremy69
09-13-2013, 8:05 PM
Is the handgun registered to you or the dog?

And if the dog how did he take the HSC test?

Ninety
09-13-2013, 8:12 PM
A dog might actually be able to pass the HSC test..

SonofWWIIDI
09-13-2013, 8:18 PM
You'll need to breed a dog with opposable thumbs so he can back you up in a firefight.
:D

Sakiri
09-13-2013, 9:12 PM
A dog might actually be able to pass the HSC test..

Yeah, I looked at that test and asked the guy at the LGS if they're serious. That test could be taken by a toddler with a lukewarm IQ and still be passed.

Peter.Steele
09-13-2013, 9:36 PM
So, my google-fu is relatively weak at the moment, but wasn't there a court case either this year or last where it was determined that a fixed-blade knife, carried in a bag or a backpack, was not concealed "upon the person" anymore, in spite of the bag being in someone's direct possession? Seems that might have some relevance to this topic, if anyone remembers the case.

(Not that I'd ever actually give my dogs guns ... they're both far too flaky. The cats, on the other hand ... )

Librarian
09-13-2013, 10:58 PM
So, my google-fu is relatively weak at the moment, but wasn't there a court case either this year or last where it was determined that a fixed-blade knife, carried in a bag or a backpack, was not concealed "upon the person" anymore, in spite of the bag being in someone's direct possession? Seems that might have some relevance to this topic, if anyone remembers the case.

The case is noted in the Knife Laws link in my sig, and that post is duplicated as a sticky in the Blade Forum.

Tincon
09-14-2013, 1:09 AM
So, my google-fu is relatively weak at the moment, but wasn't there a court case either this year or last where it was determined that a fixed-blade knife, carried in a bag or a backpack, was not concealed "upon the person" anymore, in spite of the bag being in someone's direct possession? Seems that might have some relevance to this topic, if anyone remembers the case.

(Not that I'd ever actually give my dogs guns ... they're both far too flaky. The cats, on the other hand ... )

People v. Pellecer (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 508, I quoted it above.

Peter.Steele
09-14-2013, 8:02 AM
The case is noted in the Knife Laws link in my sig, and that post is duplicated as a sticky in the Blade Forum.

People v. Pellecer (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 508, I quoted it above.



Oh, wow, so it wasn't just my google-fu that was weak, it was also my reading skills. :facepalm:

meaty-btz
09-14-2013, 9:31 AM
What good would a dog with an unloaded or even loaded gun be to you?

This thread makes me laugh with the absurdity. I agree.

Though in the spirit of the thread:

What if it was an off leash unregistered dog with an unregistered loaded hand gun in a holster.

or

In Soviet Russia dog with gun shoot bird and makes you retrieve it.

tankarian
09-14-2013, 10:41 AM
"Sir, are you carrying any weapons?"

"No, but my dog is!"

My dog's breath could be categorized as WMD.

Dvrjon
09-14-2013, 6:31 PM
I was genuinely curious and couldn't find any information online...but is it lawful to have my dog (whom is legally considered property) carry a concealed weapon?
***This is completely hypothetical - I don't even own a dog...yet.***

Your dog (hypothetical or not) is not a "whom". It's an "it" or in this case, , a "which".

It's not a vehicle, and it's not carrying on your person. All you need to do is teach it to run home when you say, "What dog, Officer? That's not my dog."

JR

otteray
09-14-2013, 8:34 PM
Ue0fZfwHfzo

Dvrjon
09-15-2013, 4:48 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Most Excellent! :clap:

G-Man WC
09-15-2013, 7:55 AM
It won't do your dog any good. He has no thumbs
and won't be able to grasp and rack the slide. :sorcerer:
-g

diverwcw
09-15-2013, 8:07 AM
This is california. If you have to ask if it is illegal, then it is illegal and to do so will likely carry mandatory double digit years of prison time.

HOGLEG
09-15-2013, 11:24 AM
http://www.clevelandseniors.com/images/petfun2/dog-jail-clothes.jpg

flatbedtruckin
09-18-2013, 3:30 AM
One question tho..is your dog currently or has been on any prescription medication? ones that might make him drowsy, are probably a no go...

the86d
09-18-2013, 3:52 AM
ve·hi·cle
ˈvēəkəl,ˈvēˌhikəl/
noun
noun: vehicle; plural noun: vehicles
1. a thing used for transporting people or goods, esp. on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.

"vehicle" of transport would be the issue here, I assume.

Your dog would be said vehicle, just like an unlocked piece of wheeled luggage...

Librarian
09-18-2013, 4:56 AM
"vehicle" of transport would be the issue here, I assume.

Your dog would be said vehicle, just like an unlocked piece of wheeled luggage...

Probably not.

The legislature gets to make up its own definitions for terms, and has: VC 670

A “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. VC 620 The term “traffic” includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel.No usage of the word 'device' in Division 1 of VC inclues an animal as a 'device'.

I do not, however, think that definitional exclusions in VC would be a sound basis to build a defense upon in this case.

kurtsea
09-18-2013, 11:17 AM
I think we've definitively conclude that it's not only legal, but a great idea to equip dogs with loaded guns. :D

http://wordsmoker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DogWithGun.jpg

Exhibit A^

My job here is done.

blazeaglory
09-18-2013, 9:26 PM
This thread makes me laugh with the absurdity. I agree.

Though in the spirit of the thread:

What if it was an off leash unregistered dog with an unregistered loaded hand gun in a holster.

or

In Soviet Russia dog with gun shoot bird and makes you retrieve it.

I thought of that...

They would take your dog to the pound and kill it or adopt it out OR put a gun to its head in front of you and wait until you finally broke down and cried "OK OK Its my dog!!!"

http://keiththompsonart.com/images/full/werecordoba.jpg

Darryl Licht
09-18-2013, 9:40 PM
OK, OK.... It is my dog!

266225

I couldn't resist!

whipkiller
09-18-2013, 10:09 PM
My dog's breath could be categorized as WMD.

Hmmm, it's the air coming out of the other end of my dog that kills.

Tincon
09-18-2013, 10:23 PM
I think we missed a huge opportunity here. We should have made a big deal about this and called it the "Dog Loopole" for CCW. Then those Yee and those other clowns would have wasted time trying to close the Dog Loopole instead of some other awful thing they were attempting.

Moonshine
09-18-2013, 11:48 PM
Dog isn't a vehicle, and it's not on your person. However the real question is: how is this even remotely a "good" idea? No matter how well trained the dog still has a will of its own (especially if its a male dog) and now its got a gun LOL!

Frito Bandido
09-19-2013, 12:20 PM
http://mediapickle.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/dog_with_a_gun.jpg

squeeze
09-21-2013, 3:28 AM
This thread has been very entertaining. I love the pictures-very creative.
I'm off to the pound tomorrow to see if they have any more dogs like you guys own. Will I have to register it with the CA DOJ?

Darryl Licht
09-21-2013, 8:28 AM
Hmmm, it's the air coming out of the other end of my dog that kills.

266740

Darryl Licht
09-21-2013, 8:29 AM
Hmmm, it's the air coming out of the other end of my dog that kills.

266742

tpuig
09-21-2013, 8:37 AM
Squirrel...

RipVanWinkle
09-21-2013, 9:10 AM
Definitely not CA or USA legal, and PETA would go ballistic, but in desperate times.......:eek:


http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18pox7hklh55qjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg

As the Russians were being overwhelmed on the Eastern Front by the Wehrmacht, the Red Army took to desperate measures — including the use of the so-called anti-tank dog. Initially, these dogs were trained to carry a bomb to a specific target, release the device with its teeth, and then return to its operator. Unfortunately, it was nearly impossible to get the dogs to do this, so the Soviets relied on much simpler strategy: just blow up the dog.

These suicide dogs were taught that food awaits them at the bottom of tanks. So, with a 26-pound bomb strapped on — and with the dogs deliberately kept hungry — they would desperately run to their targets in search of food, unaware of their eventual fate. A lever attached to the rig would strike the bottom of the tank as the dog dived under, causing the bomb to detonate. The dogs became so effective that some Germans began shooting any dog on sight. The Soviets used about 40,000 dogs for various army tasks, and an undocumented estimate places the number of German tanks destroyed at about 300.

http://io9.com/11-jaw-dropping-weapons-from-world-war-ii-you-probably-511010752

NotEnufGarage
09-25-2013, 2:01 PM
Yes, OP. That is a stupid question.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

kurtsea
09-25-2013, 5:23 PM
Yes, OP. That is a stupid question.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

:facepalm::chillpill:

Tincon
09-25-2013, 5:34 PM
Yes, OP. That is a stupid question.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Having a bad day?

advocatusdiaboli
09-25-2013, 6:41 PM
But if it's unloaded and in a locked container then it is not considered "a concealed weapon".

It is still a concealed weapon but it is a permitted exemption from the concealed weapons carry laws if it is unloaded in a locked container. California legislators like to broadly prohibit firearms and then create a labyrinthine hierarchy of confusing exemptions which discourage people from even considering possessing firearms because they cannot figure out what is legal under what circumstances. It's a great way to impose gun control without being explicit about it as that could be struck down by a court. And it works and survives court challenges because no one can figure things out.

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
09-27-2013, 11:29 PM
When you're black lab is busted and being questioned, he's going to say, "I'm just a Patsy!"




I've fallen...... and I can't reach my GLOCK !!!

numpty
10-02-2013, 11:58 PM
Wouldn't the dog need to be 21?

No, three! ;)

Fryall4
10-03-2013, 12:46 AM
Dogs are notoriously bad shots... seriously though, my dog would rat me out, especially after I clipped his nails :)

Off the Roster
10-03-2013, 1:01 AM
Wouldn't the dog need to be 21?


curses numpty! you got to the dog years first! i wanted to get a social security number for my horse so i could call him a dependent. didnt really pan out.

Off the Roster
10-03-2013, 1:05 AM
http://mediapickle.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/dog_with_a_gun.jpg


i see your dog is a cross dominant shooter