Transporting in Vehicle: UOC vs Locked and Unloaded

[goodlookin1]

Hey guys,

A coworker of mine just went through his CCW class and the instructor insisted that when transporting a handgun in a vehicle, it did NOT have to be locked in a box or in the trunk.....it only had to be unloaded. He then started talking about UOC.

I couldnt cite the specific PC, but I found this site: http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php , where the AG says that it must be locked (excludes glove box). But at the same time, I know UOC is currently legal. So if UOC is currently legal, and the PC says (apparently) when transporting a handgun in a vehicle that it must be locked and unloaded, which is correct? What am I missing here?

It seems that these two things conflict with one another, with the exception of specifically listed things, like the 1000 ft gun free school zone, federal buildings, etc, where UOC is not legal.

Any clarity would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[Arisaka]

I'm pretty sure that if the gun is in plain sight and unloaded, it doesn't need to be in a lock box. If it's concealed in the vehicle, it needs to be locked up. Still looking for clarifying sources...

[safewaysecurity]

It's better if it's locked for transport because if you UOC then you are subject to 1000 ft gun free school zones.

[chris12]

I believe you could transport unloaded and not concealed, so long as you avoid all school zones. Seeing as how avoiding all school zones is not practical, you should lock any handgun being transported in an acceptable container.

[wash]

It's better if it's locked for transport because if you UOC then you are subject to 1000 ft gun free school zones.

DING DING DING!

We have a winner!

GFSZ laws are the main thing restricting the movement of legally owned arms wether on the hip or in a car.

Lock them up to avoid all the trouble. Fight the GFSZ law to fix the problem.

[dantodd]

To me, the primary issue with UOC in your car is that it becomes too easy for the firearm to be partially concealed. Evasive maneuver and it flies off the seat or something ends up on top of the gun. Also, because I have kids, even in car seats, I am not really comfortable with the gun laying on the seat where it would be considered openly carried.

A belt holster is also not considered concealed but the risk of drama if an officer spots the gun down "on your lap" during a stop is even greater than if he sees the gun openly carried on the seat.

Unlike street encounters few officers are trained or taught about open carry in cars. Officers are ALWAYS on heightened alert when they are approaching a car at a stop. There are way too many things that a cop can't see when he's approaching. If he sees the gun before you have a chance to explain (and if it's openly carried, there's a strong chance that he will) you will almost certainly be put on the ground and searched then have to wait an interminable amount of time while the officer checks with his superiors to see if he can arrest you for giving him a heart attack.

Legal, yes. Advisable, no.

[paul0660]

Knowing about UOC in cars is good for winning bar bets and not much else.

[gun toting monkeyboy]

DING DING DING!

We have a winner!

GFSZ laws are the main thing restricting the movement of legally owned arms wether on the hip or in a car.

Lock them up to avoid all the trouble. Fight the GFSZ law to fix the problem.

Hmmm... I was under the impression that you had to knowingly have the unlocked gun in a GFSZ to trigger the problem. If there is no way you could have reasonably know that a school was there, you can't be held responsible for violating the GFSZ BS. Of course that and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee, and it would be up to your lawyer to deal with after you got dragged to jail...

[dantodd]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that you had to knowingly have the unlocked gun in a GFSZ to trigger the problem. If there is no way you could have reasonably know that a school was there, you can't be held responsible for violating the GFSZ BS. Of course that and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee, and it would be up to your lawyer to deal with after you got dragged to jail...

Theseus was disallowed from using this defense when he was prosecuted for a GFSZ violation, and it would have been a strong defense. IIRC the jury was not instructed that knowingly committing the offense was a prerequisite for conviction.

[CalBear]

As others have said, UOC in a car is fine, so long as you don't pass through school zones. That part makes it basically useless.

[paul0660]

Hmmm... I was under the impression that you had to knowingly have the unlocked gun in a GFSZ to trigger the problem. If there is no way you could have reasonably know that a school was there, you can't be held responsible for violating the GFSZ BS. Of course that and a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee, and it would be up to your lawyer to deal with after you got dragged to jail...

the standard is actually "reasonably know". I would bet that if that excuse doesn't work with the policeman arresting you, even Johnny Cochran's ghost won't get you off.

[Serpentine]

To me, the primary issue with UOC in your car is that it becomes too easy for the firearm to be partially concealed. Evasive maneuver and it flies off the seat or something ends up on top of the gun. Also, because I have kids, even in car seats, I am not really comfortable with the gun laying on the seat where it would be considered openly carried.

A belt holster is also not considered concealed but the risk of drama if an officer spots the gun down "on your lap" during a stop is even greater than if he sees the gun openly carried on the seat.

Unlike street encounters few officers are trained or taught about open carry in cars. Officers are ALWAYS on heightened alert when they are approaching a car at a stop. There are way too many things that a cop can't see when he's approaching. If he sees the gun before you have a chance to explain (and if it's openly carried, there's a strong chance that he will) you will almost certainly be put on the ground and searched then have to wait an interminable amount of time while the officer checks with his superiors to see if he can arrest you for giving him a heart attack.

Legal, yes. Advisable, no.

I'm aware of a case where a Malibu Sheriff Deputy pulled over a driver who had a revolver on his front seat, in plain view, unloaded. Don't know what happened during the encounter, but the driver was shot and killed by the deputy and his department got into big trouble over it.

.

[goodlookin1]

Thanks guys. I'm all clear now. I was missing the "concealed" vs "unconcealed" part between the two.