The apparent intent of 25610(a) is to allow you to carry unloaded in the trunk of your car without having another locked container within your trunk.
If someone wants to arrest you because you could hypothetically fold down the seat (and you could be planning to unbuckle your seatbelt, set the cruise control, crawl into the back, fold down the seat, and load up because someone might cut your off), then seems to require deliberately ignoring the intent of the law and relying upon a highly literal interpretation -- one that would also allow you to consider the entire vehicle a locked container (assuming you locked your vehicle's doors). Obviously, the unstated intent of the trunk exception is not for you to have access to the handgun, but it doesn't literally say anywhere in 25610 that the exception doesn't apply if you are inside the locked container or trunk.
It isn't a debate that I would ever want to have, but I can't imagine 12 people wanting to convict you for following both the intent and letter of the law, while the prosecutor requires that both be ignored.
If someone wants to arrest you because you could hypothetically fold down the seat (and you could be planning to unbuckle your seatbelt, set the cruise control, crawl into the back, fold down the seat, and load up because someone might cut your off), then seems to require deliberately ignoring the intent of the law and relying upon a highly literal interpretation -- one that would also allow you to consider the entire vehicle a locked container (assuming you locked your vehicle's doors). Obviously, the unstated intent of the trunk exception is not for you to have access to the handgun, but it doesn't literally say anywhere in 25610 that the exception doesn't apply if you are inside the locked container or trunk.
It isn't a debate that I would ever want to have, but I can't imagine 12 people wanting to convict you for following both the intent and letter of the law, while the prosecutor requires that both be ignored.
Comment