Interesting LEO encounter, did he even see it?

[Dr Rockso]

He didn't see it. If he had it would of been ugly. Unless you have a concealed weapon permit, the weapon must be locked and the gun and ammunition unaccessible to you. You should play the lotto more often, but don't think your luck will hold out. Had he seen it you would of been arrested. In other states no big deal as long as it is in plain sight, it can be full battery. California is different. It is lucky for you, for if he had seen the weapon, he would of drawn down on you, forced you from the Vehicle, ending with you sprawled out on the ground, and him waiting for back up. Definitely, not something any of us want to go through.

Nope. PC 12025 prohibits carrying a weapon 'capable of being concealed on the person' concealed in a vehicle. PC 12026.1 contains an exemption to 12025 if the handgun is in a fully enclosed locked container.

I think the OP got pretty lucky, but what he did wasn't illegal. My guess is that the trooper just didn't see it.

[bden]

You got stopped by CHP and weren't given a ticket!?!

*I'm only joking because nearly all the threads about CHP result in a flood of people saying they never cut any slack at all.

My bet is he saw it, figured you were a decent guy, and you likely weren't going all that much over the limit. Sounds like a whole lotta luck though for sure.

[Untamed1972]

All I can say is you're brave....and VERY lucky!

My bet is he didn't see it, if he had....he likely would have shown you the business end of his!

[B Strong]

I was pulled over by CHP on friday for speeding. I had my SP2022 on the passenger seat of my Tahoe on a dark grey sweatshirt. It was unloaded and the slide was locked back. The mag was sitting next to it.

I was a bit nervous as I figured the officer could be reasonable...or not.

The officer approached the passenger side and I rolled the window down once he was next to the window and could see me clearly. He asked for my license and registration (which was in the glove box). I had to reach over to within 9 inches of the gun.

After running docs and minor chatter about my speed, he let me go without a ticket.

He never said a word about the gun. Nothing.

Do you think he missed it? It was very open and inches from my hands at various points during the stop. Or is it possible the officer was comfortable with the condition in which it was displayed and didn't feel the need to talk about it. What do you think?

Buy a lottery ticket - I haven't heard of the CHP showing any sense of humor about speeding tickets for a long while.

[Matt C]

Your lucky
With all these LEO's who have been shot receintly and that shooting in AZ I dont think you would have been let off with a warning. A Tahoe is not a pickup so there is a back area to put your weapon. Personally not only were you luck but you are also stupid.

Fail

He didn't see it. If he had it would of been ugly. Unless you have a concealed weapon permit, the weapon must be locked and the gun and ammunition unaccessible to you. You should play the lotto more often, but don't think your luck will hold out. Had he seen it you would of been arrested. In other states no big deal as long as it is in plain sight, it can be full battery. California is different. It is lucky for you, for if he had seen the weapon, he would of drawn down on you, forced you from the Vehicle, ending with you sprawled out on the ground, and him waiting for back up. Definitely, not something any of us want to go through.

Fail

Most likely and I say the most likely thing that happened is that he didn't see it. Next time you drive like that at least put a jacket over it or something.

MEGAEPICFAIL

Nope. PC 12025 prohibits carrying a weapon 'capable of being concealed on the person' concealed in a vehicle. PC 12026.1 contains an exemption to 12025 if the handgun is in a fully enclosed locked container.

I think the OP got pretty lucky, but what he did wasn't illegal. My guess is that the trooper just didn't see it.

This.

[choprzrul]

California Penal Code 12025

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her 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 he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.

...

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

12025 is all about concealed firearms. section (f) makes an expressed exception to being concealed if is "...carried openly in belt holsters..."

Would I bet my freedom that a LEO isn't going to cuff me and stuff me regardless of what the PC says? Nope.

I think that there has been some case law regarding this???

.

[rockman]

Lucky, get a ccw permit then no worries.

[jak77]

So to clarify, if its not in a locked container, it has to be out in the open and you'll be fine? Can you get in trouble for not having it in a locked container but out in the open like the op did?

[Deadbolt]

California Penal Code 12025



12025 is all about concealed firearms. section (f) makes an expressed exception to being concealed if is "...carried openly in belt holsters..."

Would I bet my freedom that a LEO isn't going to cuff me and stuff me regardless of what the PC says? Nope.

I think that there has been some case law regarding this???

.

interesting! I thought the locked container was anytime the handgun was in a vehicle in transit.

Learn something new everyday.

[choprzrul]

interesting! I thought the locked container was anytime the handgun was in a vehicle in transit.

Learn something new everyday.

IANAL, so don't go betting on my interpretation of the PC. Additionally, school zones open up a whole 'nother can of worms; not to mention it better be unloaded or the LOC laws will probably get you. It's a minefield out there; literally 'no man's land' when it comes to your fundamental 2A civil rights.

.

[Dr Rockso]

So to clarify, if its not in a locked container, it has to be out in the open and you'll be fine? Can you get in trouble for not having it in a locked container but out in the open like the op did?

At the most basic level you're correct. From all the indications in the original post, the OP did nothing illegal. He had a concealable firearm in the vehicle, but that firearm was not concealed and thus no law was broken.

It's not ideal for several reasons:
-If an average urban police officer sees your unloaded, unconcealed handgun in your vehicle you're likely to have a bad encounter. He or she may not know the nuances of 12025/12026, or any of the other maze of potentially applicable laws in that situation.

-If you end up in a school zone (within 1000 feet of school grounds) you're in violation of both state and federal law.

-The loaded magazine can cause its own set of problems. Look over the Calguns Wiki article 'Defining Loaded in California'. It would be easy for a police officer to mistake the 12001(j) definition of 'loaded' (firearm and ammunition in your possession) to apply, even though you don't meet the 12023 'intent to commit a felony' stipulation.

-Without the case law in People v. Clark, a police officer could read the 12031(g) definition of loaded of 'in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm' to mean that a loaded magazine (the magazine being a part of the firearm) could constitute a loaded gun.

-If the magazine somehow becomes concealed, even if the firearm isn't (and even if the magazine isn't loaded!), you now have an exposed firearm that is partially concealed (literally a part of the firearm, the magazine, is concealed), which is considered a violation of 12025.

My guess is that if you repeated the same situation across CA a hundred times, a significant fraction of those situations would end with the driver taking a ride in the back seat of a police car. Legal? Yeah. Good idea? IMO, absolutely not. Also, what happens if you have to brake or swerve suddenly and your unconcealed firearm or magazine falls down onto your floorboards underneath the seat? Now it's partially concealed, and you're likely to get convicted for it (at the very least, you're going to have to argue the point in court...expensively).

[Vanguard]

At the most basic level you're correct. From all the indications in the original post, the OP did nothing illegal. He had a concealable firearm in the vehicle, but that firearm was not concealed and thus no law was broken.

It's not ideal for several reasons:
-If an average urban police officer sees your unloaded, unconcealed handgun in your vehicle you're likely to have a bad encounter. He or she may not know the nuances of 12025/12026, or any of the other maze of potentially applicable laws in that situation.

-If you end up in a school zone (within 1000 feet of school grounds) you're in violation of both state and federal law.

-The loaded magazine can cause its own set of problems. Look over the Calguns Wiki article 'Defining Loaded in California'. It would be easy for a police officer to mistake the 12001(j) definition of 'loaded' (firearm and ammunition in your possession) to apply, even though you don't meet the 12023 'intent to commit a felony' stipulation.

-Without the case law in People v. Clark, a police officer could read the 12031(g) definition of loaded of 'in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm' to mean that a loaded magazine (the magazine being a part of the firearm) could constitute a loaded gun.

-If the magazine somehow becomes concealed, even if the firearm isn't (and even if the magazine isn't loaded!), you now have an exposed firearm that is partially concealed (literally a part of the firearm, the magazine, is concealed), which is considered a violation of 12025.

My guess is that if you repeated the same situation across CA a hundred times, a significant fraction of those situations would end with the driver taking a ride in the back seat of a police car. Legal? Yeah. Good idea? IMO, absolutely not. Also, what happens if you have to brake or swerve suddenly and your unconcealed firearm or magazine falls down onto your floorboards underneath the seat? Now it's partially concealed, and you're likely to get convicted for it (at the very least, you're going to have to argue the point in court...expensively).

Nice post. Clear and concise.

[Moto4Fun]

From my research, limited to calguns threaded dedicated to legal open carry; it has been my determination that the weapon and magazine must both be visible. I agree that it was a brave way to go, but my thought process was something like this: I am carrying a gun in my car and I don't have the ability to lock it up, what other LEGAL avenue do I have? Open and unloaded is what I figured was the only legal option. I really had no plan on being pulled over and wasn't terribly concerned about it, until I saw that CHP flip around behind me. Honestly, my first instinct was that I should hide the gun, then my brain kicked in and said "and turn a legal situation into an illegal one?".

I believe he didn't see it. I feel that if he had seen it, he would have at least said something. If he was an anti- he would have given me a real hard time. If he was one of us, I think he would have made a small comment to let me know that he saw it and is ok with it. He might even recommend a different way of transporting to avoid hassle from other officers. It is hard to say, but I posted not to discuss the legality or luck of what I was doing, but rather to see if people think a pro-gun officer would have seen it and not said a word about it.

[choprzrul]

I, personally, believe that to be compliant to the letter of the law; you must carry that handgun unloaded and in a holster. Here is why:

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed
within the meaning of this section.

YMMV

.