Routine traffic stop, asked about my registered firearms

[Decoligny]

You sound like one of those sovereign citizens, better watch out for you, I mean, who needs a gun?

No, the sovereign citizen says "The Penal Code does not apply to me because the Government that wrote those laws is illegitimate."

I sound like a knowledgable citizen who says "Where in the Penal Code does it say the X activity is illegal?"

[ojisan]

While CA law says loaded mags in the same locked case as the gun is OK, Federal law does not:

"Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered."

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx

CA law is contrary to Fed law.
Of course, Fed law is in effect everywhere, even in CA.
So, if you get checked by a Fed agent in CA, and are transporting your guns and ammo CA-legal-style, you are in violation of Fed law.
If you transport out of state, you need to follow Fed law.

It would be nice if all the posters here do not jump on the newbs when they ask how to legally transport.
Many laws are passed on by word of mouth.
Since Fed law was the only law for years, it's not surprising that many people think that is what is required (gun locked separate from ammo locked).
Many older cops seem to only know the Fed laws, this can make for awkward moments for CA gun owners who choose to put guns and ammo in the same container.

[Press Check]

Just big enough to house a pistol and magazine I wonder if a small Pelican case in the passenger seat would warrant enough reasonable suspicion to believe there's a firearm in it.

[TeddyBallgame]

While CA law says loaded mags in the same locked case as the gun is OK, Federal law does not:

"Under FOPA, notwithstanding any state or local law, a person is entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he or she may lawfully possess and carry it, if the firearm is unloaded and locked out of reach. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm must be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. Ammunition that is either locked out of reach in the trunk or in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console is also covered."

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/articles/2010/guide-to-the-interstate-transportation.aspx

CA law is contrary to Fed law.
Of course, Fed law is in effect everywhere, even in CA.
So, if you get checked by a Fed agent in CA, and are transporting your guns and ammo CA-legal-style, you are in violation of Fed law.
If you transport out of state, you need to follow Fed law.

It would be nice if all the posters here do not jump on the newbs when they ask how to legally transport.
Many laws are passed on by word of mouth.
Since Fed law was the only law for years, it's not surprising that many people think that is what is required (gun locked separate from ammo locked).
Many older cops seem to only know the Fed laws, this can make for awkward moments for CA gun owners who choose to put guns and ammo in the same container.

i don't see where guns and ammo cannot be in the same locked case with what you cited under Federal Law...did i miss something, maybe you can highlight it for me?

I'll be in "off topic" for a few more minutes, just knock on the door

[Kelster1574]

Sounds like officer safety to me. I have heard of departments providing this info to officers when responding to calls. Most of the officers I know and have ridden out with appreciate receiving all the information they can about the vehicle, residence, and individuals they are coming into contact with. I know there are many folks screaming it's none of there business, and that they should never ask you that question. Simply put you don't have to answer there questions truthfully or even at all, that's your right. I will also say that walking up to a car during a traffic stop, even in the middle of the day is very dangerous and must be done with extreme caution. Just my .02

[cruising7388]

I would laugh. I would then say, "No, but I don't understand the foundation for that question. How would that be related to operating a vehicle?"

Note: Alcohol and firearms both trigger legal restrictions related to operating a vehicle. Questions regarding alcohol and firearms at least fall within the purview of the officer's duty in pulling me over for a traffic violation. If I have nothing to hide, I don't mind answering questions like that.

But alcohol and firearms also trigger legal restrictions related to just walking down the street. Adopting your criteria, do you also not mind answering questions like these as a predestrian?

[cruising7388]

Try asking your wife if she's cheated on you POLITELY, see how that works out for you pal.

I've had good luck so far. When my wife cheats on me, she always does it politely.

[Mayor McRifle]

But alcohol and firearms also trigger legal restrictions related to just walking down the street. Adopting your criteria, do you also not mind answering questions like these as a predestrian?

If there was reasonable suspicion to stop and question me in the first place, then no, I wouldn't mind answering those questions. If a police officer just walked up and asked me without being able to articulate the reasonable suspicion necessary to stop and question me in the first place, then yes, I would mind, and I would ask why he or she was asking me.

[ojisan]

Teddy: from the link...the second paragraph...

"Many states and localities have laws governing the transportation of firearms. Travelers must be aware of these laws and comply with legal requirements in each jurisdiction. There is no uniform state transportation procedure for firearms. If in doubt, a traveler should carry firearms unloaded, locked in a case, and stored in an area (such as a trunk or attached toolbox) where they are inaccessible from a vehicle’s passenger compartment and not visible from outside the vehicle. Any ammunition should be stored in a separate locked container."

Underlined for you.

Italics say that you can't have it within reach, too.

Now this is just the NRA / NRA-ILA interpretation of the laws.
However, I do believe these guys are on the side of us gun owners.
You can read it yourself and, of course, make your own interpretation and transport decisions:
Title 18- Part 1- Chapter 44- s926A
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44-sec926A/content-detail.html

[RickD427]

A search for what? They still need probable cause that a crime has been, or is being, committed. Legally owning guns is not a crime.

Mayor,

Please check out the California Court of Appeals decision in People v Delong.

The LEO does not need probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. They only need probable cause to believe there is a firearm (including those that are legally possessed and transported) in the vehicle so long as the vehicle in in an incorporated city, or an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited. That was the whole point of Delong.

Once the above PC has been established, then the officer has legal standing to conduct a non-consentual search of the vehicle for the firearm(s) and to make the permitted examination of the firearm under PC25850(b).

[JMP]

Most of the time when I go shooting, it would be obvious to anyone that pulled me over that I am going shooting. I am not going to act like a criminal for doing nothing wrong. If LE wanted to deliberately harass law-abiding gun owners, they'd just hang out and pull people over after leaving a shooting range. I am sure there are very unfortunate bad-apple encounters, but I think it's not all that likely.

[Mayor McRifle]

Mayor,

Please check out the California Court of Appeals decision in People v Delong.

The LEO does not need probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. They only need probable cause to believe there is a firearm (including those that are legally possessed and transported) in the vehicle so long as the vehicle in in an incorporated city, or an unincorporated area where shooting is prohibited. That was the whole point of Delong.

Once the above PC has been established, then the officer has legal standing to conduct a non-consentual search of the vehicle for the firearm(s) and to make the permitted examination of the firearm under PC25850(b).

My statement that you quoted was made in response to bonusweb's assertion, "Except if you say no, they are going to use as excuse for a search anyway." (Post #120) I still don't see how saying "no" would provide probable cause, or (based on the caselaw you've cited) knowledge of the presence of firearms in the car.

That notwithstanding, I was not aware of the case you've cited, so thank you for pointing it out. It's interesting that it's 44 years old. Has anyone Shepardized it lately? Regardless, in that case the gun owner was arrested not for his guns, but for the marijuana he had in plain view next to his guns. I guess a good lesson from that is to not have any contraband in your vehicle when you are transporting firearms. As mikeyr said in Post #121, "If you are legal you have nothing to fear." That remains true, even in light of the ruling in People v. DeLong.

[RickD427]

My statement that you quoted was made in response to bonusweb's assertion, "Except if you say no, they are going to use as excuse for a search anyway." (Post #120) I still don't see how saying "no" would provide probable cause, or (based on the caselaw you've cited) knowledge of the presence of firearms in the car.

That notwithstanding, I was not aware of the case you've cited, so thank you for pointing it out. It's interesting that it's 44 years old. Has anyone Shepardized it lately? Regardless, in that case the gun owner was arrested not for his guns, but for the marijuana he had in plain view next to his guns. I guess a good lesson from that is to not have any contraband in your vehicle when you are transporting firearms. As mikeyr said in Post #121, "If you are legal you have nothing to fear." That remains true, even in light of the ruling in People v. DeLong.

Mayor,

I've been retired a little over a year now. I last checked the case for currency about three years ago when I last had use of it. It was still published as of then. The key to the case was that the PC to believe guns were in the car provided standing for the search.

[Beleaguered]

Teddy: from the link...the second paragraph...

"Many states and localities have laws governing the transportation of firearms. Travelers must be aware of these laws and comply with legal requirements in each jurisdiction. There is no uniform state transportation procedure for firearms. If in doubt, a traveler should carry firearms unloaded, locked in a case, and stored in an area (such as a trunk or attached toolbox) where they are inaccessible from a vehicle’s passenger compartment and not visible from outside the vehicle. Any ammunition should be stored in a separate locked container."

Underlined for you.

Italics say that you can't have it within reach, too.

Now this is just the NRA / NRA-ILA interpretation of the laws.
However, I do believe these guys are on the side of us gun owners.
You can read it yourself and, of course, make your own interpretation and transport decisions:
Title 18- Part 1- Chapter 44- s926A
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap44-sec926A/content-detail.html

You're quoting something that introduces travel with recommendations specifically prefaced by "If in doubt..." and what a traveler "should" do. Those look more like recommendations as how you can travel without risking violation of FOPA or various state/local laws. It doesn't directly state that ammunition and firearm in separate containers is a requirement of FOPA.

Can you find an area in the law's text itself which says the two must be in separate containers?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926A

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

[Mayor McRifle]

Mayor,

I've been retired a little over a year now. I last checked the case for currency about three years ago when I last had use of it. It was still published as of then. The key to the case was that the PC to believe guns were in the car provided standing for the search.

I only skimmed it, but I believe the court called it an "examination," or in any event, a search which would be very limited in scope. I'm now curious if that has ever been extended to a full search of the entire vehicle. Also, DeLong denied having firearms in his car (as some have been advising people to do in this thread), but the officer had seen him place two firearms in his trunk. DeLong then said he didn't have the key to his trunk, but then dropped a key on the ground.

Wouldn't answering the question truthfully, and then directing the officer to the gun's exact location, limit the search and eliminate any justification for a full search of the entire vehicle? It wouldn't have helped DeLong, who had chosen to store illegal drugs in plain view next to his guns, but it might help others who are not so foolish.