[Librarian]

Originally Posted by greg_9

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]

Originally Posted by Librarian

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]

Originally Posted by Librarian

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]

Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree

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]

Originally Posted by fairfaxjim

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]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

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 - at least

Last in Time
When two statutes conflict, the one enacted last prevails.

seems to apply.

[allenst65]

Originally Posted by chainsaw

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.

Originally Posted by Librarian

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Glock22Fan

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]

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]

Originally Posted by allenst65

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.

Originally Posted by allenst65

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]

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]

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]

I'm guessing either school zone or jail/prison...about the only direct ones that come to mind.....

[MudCamper]

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.

I recommend carrying this or something similar with you.