Begging for Jail Time?

[ifilef]

Yep.

Biggest problem is I used to have much of the 12000 series committed to memory, or had a good enough idea of the section to find it quickly.
The renumbering screwed that up, like the above example, it used to be in the preceeding subsection, and now it's in the following section.

This statute stands alone (without destination requirements) to provide an exemption to 25400 when the firearm is within a motor vehicle, or when carried directly to and from a motor vehicle.

Disagree. That statute only provides how to transport a handgun in your vehicle. And it must be for a lawful purpose. The argument is that the lawful purpose is contained in that 25505 et seq.., otherwise, the statutory framework of what follows 25505 is meaningless. I wish that I felt otherwise but the point is academic anyway. I don't think officers care either way, just that you comply with the locked case requirement and if they inspect it, that it is unloaded.

But actually I do see the argument. First clause does not state for lawful purpose. Second clause does and mentions carrying it. I'm beginning to think there is no clear answer and one can't go solely by the statutes.

[Cody805]

I would be afraid of being in the parking lot when they cops show up and getting shot for having a gun.

This

[ifilef]

As an aside, under 25610 a person could now have an unloaded pistol or revolver in the glove department if it's locked, unless there's another applicable statute. And this has been operative since 2012? I wasn't aware of it, there must be another applicable statute that mentions 'not in glove box or utility container', yes?

Later: PENAL CODE - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370] ( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
TITLE 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [16000 - 17360] ( Title 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
DIVISION 2. DEFINITIONS [16100 - 17360] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
16850.
As used in this part, “locked container” means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term “locked container” does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.
(Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 103, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2015.)

[Cokebottle]

As an aside, under 25610 a person now could have an unloaded pistol or revolver in the glove department if it's locked, unless there's another statute.

I noticed it missing from 25610, that is addressed in the 255xx section where "secure locking container" is defined
Edit: Looking for it now, I had it the other night

Edit:

Definitions under the general 16000 "Control of Deadly Weapons"

16850. As used in this part, "locked container" means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.

[Cokebottle]

But actually I do see the argument. First clause does not state for lawful purpose. Second clause does and mentions carrying it.

And the 2nd clause somewhat parallels 255xx, where the vehicle is the "destination"
But there is no "and" connecting the two section, as there is in 25400 where the locked container *and* destination requirements are defined.
Likewise, there is no reference to 256xx by 254xx tying anything in one statute to a condition in another statute.

[ifilef]

I noticed it missing from 25610, that is addressed in the 255xx section where "secure locking container" is defined
Edit: Looking for it now, I had it the other night

PENAL CODE - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000 - 34370] ( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
TITLE 1. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS [16000 - 17360] ( Title 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
DIVISION 2. DEFINITIONS [16100 - 17360] ( Division 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )
16850.
As used in this part, “locked container” means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term “locked container” does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.
(Amended by Stats. 2014, Ch. 103, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 2015.)

[ifilef]

And the 2nd clause somewhat parallels 25400, where the vehicle is the "destination"
But there is no "and" connecting the two section, as there is in 25400 where the locked container *and* destination requirements are defined.
Likewise, there is no reference to 256xx by 254xx tying anything in one statute to a condition in another statute.

I'm not sure that I follow your post, but as a hypothetical:

A wishes to transport his handguns to a motel to stay overnight and then go shooting in the morning. Technically, and with the construction I earlier espoused, this would be unlawful transport on A's part because he was not going directly to the range. Put aside for a moment any argument that the motel would constitute a temporary residence or a reasonably necessary deviation. There's an issue about bringing the guns into the motel in contrast to keeping them in the car, also.

So, I guess that 25505 et seq. would more likely apply to activities of transport outside the car. But one must be careful about these areas of law. There have been cases where people have been prosecuted for carrying loaded weapons on their own personal or business property where considered accessible to the public. Not directly on point, but cause for concern and further research. In doing legal research, a statute is only the first place, the beginning of the search.

[Cokebottle]

I'm not sure that I follow your post, but as a hypothetical:

A wishes to transport his handguns to a motel to stay overnight and then go shooting in the morning. Technically, and with the construction I earlier espoused, this would be unlawful transport on A's part because he was not going directly to the range. Put aside for a moment any argument that the motel would constitute a temporary residence or a reasonably necessary deviation. There's an issue about bringing the guns into the motel in contrast to keeping them in the car, also.

So, I guess that 25505 et seq. would more likely apply to activities of transport outside the car. But one must be careful about these areas of law. There have been cases where people have been prosecuted for carrying loaded weapons on their own personal or business property where considered accessible to the public. Not directly on point, but cause for concern and further research. In doing legal research, a statute is only the first place, the beginning of the search.

Not to negate my own argument, but that can go either way, since transport to and from your vehicle for any lawful purpose includes transport to and from your home.
Your stop at the motel being a temporary residence is certainly not worth of setting aside.

It COULD be argued that stopping at Denny's (and leaving the gun locked in the car) satisfies the requirements of avoiding unreasonable stops.

A gung-ho DA could possibly make a charge stick under 255xx for vehicular transport if you have a poor defense attorney... or if there is major color to the case, and use it as a plea bargaining charge.

But yes, in general, my belief and comfort level is that we are okay with a "trunk gun", but I would not be comfortable going about my daily business carrying in a briefcase or backpack outside of the vehicle.