|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > California > Is a locked car a locked container?
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > California > Is a locked car a locked container?
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member 
|
PC 12026.1(c) defines a locked container as"locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device PC 626.9 states that "Locked container" has the same meaning as that term is given in subdivision (c) of Section 12026.1. Now the question I pose to the forum is, is the locked passenger area of a car a locked container? It is fully enclosed area (a strange "container," but certainly secure) locked by a key lock. So is a locked passenger area a locked container providing that the windows are up and the only valid ways of entry are either illegal or with the car key? I can't see why it isn't. Last edited on Fri May 22nd, 2009 07:49 pm by bigtoe416 |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member 
|
Two words; Glass windows. I think that the fragility of glass windows negate the security of anything placed inside the passenger compartment. And 12025 comes into play if the firearm is hidden from view and not otherwise locked up. So the passenger compartment while lockable is neither secure nor exempted from a concealed weapons charge. Last edited on Fri May 22nd, 2009 08:54 pm by ConditionThree |
|||||||||
|
Army Regular Member 
|
No. It is a vehicle with its own set of state and federal codes and laws pertaining to its uses. Being a security device is not one of them. If a longarm, locked in the trunk is fine. If a handgun, and you wish to secure/conceal it, then it must be in a seperate locking container. Leaving them in visual range in the cab while you are away, is foolish at best. |
|||||||||
|
wayneco Regular Member 
|
I believe locking a handgun in a trunk satisfies the locked container requirement, correct? |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
Army wrote: No. It is a vehicle with its own set of state and federal codes and laws pertaining to its uses. Being a security device is not one of them. I certainly wasn't suggesting that leaving a handgun in plain view was a good idea. I was thinking that by locking your car you could drive through school zones without violating 626.9. Addressing the fragileness of the windows, I know the definition says secure, but it doesn't specifically say how secure is defined. Surely a locked moving vehicle with an armed occupant would be secure enough for me to not want to mess around with it. |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
wayneco wrote: I believe locking a handgun in a trunk satisfies the locked container requirement, correct? This is correct. I'm curious if ConditionThree would think that a trunk with a window would meet the requirements of 12026.1. The trunk requirement doesn't have the word "secure" anywhere on it, so one may conclude that the trunk is under less scrutiny than a locked container. Last edited on Fri May 22nd, 2009 10:57 pm by bigtoe416 |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher 
|
bigtoe416 wrote: Addressing the fragileness of the windows, I know the definition says secure, but it doesn't specifically say how secure is defined. Surely a locked moving vehicle with an armed occupant would be secure enough for me to not want to mess around with it. The question is: would you risk your liberty on it? "Secure" will be determined by a judge or a jury. There is some constitutional issue with poorly defined/unclear law, but in CA I wouldn't bet on the courts to recognize that. |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: bigtoe416 wrote:Addressing the fragileness of the windows, I know the definition says secure, but it doesn't specifically say how secure is defined. Surely a locked moving vehicle with an armed occupant would be secure enough for me to not want to mess around with it. Agreed. The definition or the degree of security would be scrutinized by our judicial system and I doubt that any of us really want to become a test case in the debate over whether or not a glass window is secure against theft or misuse of a firearm. Jurors would base their conclusions about security on what a 'reasonable people' would deduce. I am making an assumption that most would conclude that glass is not the optimal material to secure valuables. (So, no- a trunk with a 'window' probably wouldn't pass muster either- but I am no attorney.) The underlying reasoning for these restrictions though, aren't really about how secure a transported firearm is, but how accessible the firearm is to an occupant of the vehicle. Note that the a locking glove compartment (only accessible through a locked door to the cab of the vehicle) is excluded from being the acceptable secure container, whereas a trunk (which can be accessed from outside the vehicle) is included as a secure lockable location. |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member 
|
ConditionThree wroteAgreed. The definition or the degree of security would be scrutinized by our judicial system and I doubt that any of us really want to become a test case in the debate over whether or not a glass window is secure against theft or misuse of a firearm. Jurors would base their conclusions about security on what a 'reasonable people' would deduce. I am making an assumption that most would conclude that glass is not the optimal material to secure valuables. (So, no- a trunk with a 'window' probably wouldn't pass muster either- but I am no attorney.) I wonder though, you mention here that a reasonable person might not consider it secure, yet they commonly leave their valuables in such places other than the trunk. It could be argued that if other items of such value are commonly stored and "secured" in the same manner that perhaps this is not an unreasonable assumption of secure. As mentioned the level of secure is arguable, but it doesn't mean that if it can be broken it isn't secure. If that is the case any one can simply use a knife to cut open the soft gun cases or a bolt cutter and claim our cases not secure. They will argue in court legislative intent. I won't get much into the 626.9 for reasons that are obvious to many here. |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
Theseus wrote: I wonder though, you mention here that a reasonable person might not consider it secure, yet they commonly leave their valuables in such places other than the trunk. This follows my train of thought. I keep my tire chains in the passenger portion of my car and I fully expect them to be there when I return. Same for lots of people's stereos or sunglasses or whatever. I'm only suggesting here that this might be a possible defense if one of us was arrested for violating 626.9. I was also curious on what other people thought about the validity of the argument. |
|||||||||
|
Theseus Founder's Club Member
|
Of course this would all be mute if the car was considered private property. That being the case then as long as the firearm was IN or ON your private property and it was NOT a public place then you could conceal and load all you want with no care for 626.9. |
|||||||||
|
Robin47 Regular Member
|
Heres another senario, on carrying in vehicles. If you get a truck with a camper shell, and its got a glass back window. Should you have your Guns exposed or should they be in another container with a lock on it ? The back of the camper is already locked. If you conceal the gun in the back even if the camper is locked up, would that be in violation of the law ? How could one carry it legally ? Robin47 |
|||||||||
|
ConditionThree Activist Member
|
Robin47 wrote: Heres another senario, on carrying in vehicles. Long guns or handguns? Campershell with a sliding pass through window or fixed window? Let me digest a couple of scenarios; 1) Your truck has a locking camper shell with a fixed window and no access to the cab of the vehicle. You transport both your unloaded long guns and handguns in the back in plain sight or under a tarp with no additional locking container. The shell is locked. Are the weapons secured? I dont believe so, but since the occupants cannot access the firearms, I dont believe they would get you in trouble unless there is some other evidence of a crime. 2) Your truck has a locking camper shell with a sliding pass through window, where conceivably an occupant can access the contents of the truck bed. You transport both your unloaded long guns and handguns in the back with no additional locking container. The shell is locked. This is no different than having them in the back seat of the car and unless the handguns are in plain sight, you are violating 12025. |
|||||||||
|
Robin47 Regular Member
|
No sliding windew to the cab. One locking door from the back of the truck. A pistol. Rifles are O.K.I Believe. Pistols I don't know? Robin47 |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member 
|
Robin47 wrote:No sliding windew to the cab. Huh?  |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
Robin47 wrote: No sliding windew to the cab. Yes, 12025 only applies to "concealable" firearms. In your scenario, I'd say you have a fully enclosed, secure, locking container. However, that doesn't mean the judge/jury will agree. They will determine what a "reasonable" person would consider secure. Not a position I would put myself in... I don't trust the justice system to be "reasonable" at all. |
|||||||||
|
Robin47 Regular Member
|
Thanks CA_Lib, Yeah I don't trust the system either ! Robin47 |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member 
|
I would think that to meet the definition of a locked container at least for gun purposes would mean something that did not have people inside of it. You do bring up an interesting point as would it be legal for your gun to be in your trunk along with someone firing out of the trunk such as the DC Sniper deal? Would a jail be a locked container or the trailer of a semi being used as a shooting range while rolling down the interstate? You make a good case but I don't think it will pass muster so how about trying it and let us know what the court decides. |
|||||||||
|
Robin47 Regular Member
|
Well PT111, The Idea is how to carry an unloared gun in your truck with a campershell that has a window on the rear locking door. Where one could look in and see your gun. ( Pistol) Or would it be Illegal to conceal it in another box that is locked up and out of sight with the Ammo still in the clip, but not in the gun. Other then OCing which is legal other then a school zone, and around the govenors mansion ETC. I always figured "Out of sight, out of mind", yet still locked in the back of the truck. So the main question is " If your unloaded gun is concealed in the back of your truck, with a loaded clip but not in the gun, AND the camper shell is locked, would that be considered Illegal" ? A consealed loaded clip might be consided a loaded gun ? Correct ??? Even though its in a locked campershell. So the loaded clip must be visible thrugh the window. So if the gun unloaded and the clip loaded is both visible through the window would that be legal carry ? Even if the campershell is locked ! Robin47 |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
Robin47 wrote: A consealed loaded clip might be consided a loaded gun ? Correct ??? The case law that makes a "loaded" concealed magazine/clip a violation of 12025 requires that you are doing so in a way that would allow you to easily load the firearm. In the specific instance in the case, the guy had a handgun sitting unconcealed in his passenger compartment, but had a "loaded" magazine concealed within easy access. The court ruled that concealing an integral part in a way that allows easy completion of the firearm is the same as concealing the complete firearm. (Twisted logic, but for now it's standing case law.) So, you can conceal mags all you want, so long as the handgun isn't immediately accessible to you. Further, since the court ruled a concealed magazine to be a violation of 12025, simply locking up the mag would exempt you from any concealed violation, even if you had the handgun immediately accessible (e.g. UOC with mags locked in a gun case on the seat next to you). And, just ignore PT111. He's obviously got no idea what this thread is about... DC Sniper and Rolling shooting range? WTF? |
|||||||||
|
Robin47 Regular Member
|
Got it ! How about driving while OCing ? If the loaded mag, on one side and the empty gun on the other side of your hip. While driving, other then through a School zone and govenors area in Sac. Thats legal right ? I believe it is. Robin47 |
|||||||||
|
nukechaser Regular Member
|
Robin47 wrote: Got it ! Penal Code 626.9 is pretty clear. Firearms, brought within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school (inclusive), must be locked in the trunk or in a lockable container. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html You are correct. UOC while driving is ok, just not near schools or other "sterile" areas. Many folks keep a lock box on the passenger seat adn if they know they are approaching a school zone (within 1,000 feet) they just toss their gun and magazine into the box and close and lock it. Once clear of the area, you can unlock the box and re-holster your gear. |
|||||||||
|
PT111 Regular Member
|
I thought the OP question was the following.Thread drift went off into camper shells and covered magazines but the original question was as state above. Just excuse me for trying to answer the original question which was exactly what the DC sniper was doing. He wasn't shooting out of a camper shell with or without an opening back window of a pickup or trying to hide his magazines under a towel so someone could't see them from outside. he was shooting from inside a car that could be locked. As for the looking through the windows to see you gun what if you had it in a glass case that was locked. According to some of you that would make a difference. |
|||||||||
|
coolusername2007 Regular Member 
|
nukechaser wrote: Robin47 wrote:Got it ! Looking for a little clarification as I am researching OC'ing, but am surrounded by public and private schools (they are everywhere!). While driving through the school zone, would you have to lock away your loaded magazine? Or is it enough to lock only the gun away and continue to open carry (holstered) the loaded magazine? |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
coolusername2007 wrote: Looking for a little clarification as I am researching OC'ing, but am surrounded by public and private schools (they are everywhere!). While driving through the school zone, would you have to lock away your loaded magazine? Or is it enough to lock only the gun away and continue to open carry (holstered) the loaded magazine? First, in the legal sense a magazine cannot be "loaded" - only a firearm can. I prefer to refer to a magazine as "full" or "charged" to prevent confusion with the legal term "loaded". I don't mean to nit pick, but I think it's important to be clear when we're discussing the law. 626.9 does not prohibit magazines or clips in school zones. It only prohibits pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person (anything not a long gun). We do have some bad case law that says concealing a magazine can be a violation of 12025 (in some cases), but I don't believe that would apply here. If you're worried about it just lock up the mags too. |
|||||||||
|
coolusername2007 Regular Member
|
Thanks CA_Libertarian. I appreciate the terminology correction, and don't consider it nit picking. You are correct, clarity is key. I'm looking at this from a practical standpoint and would be interested in knowing what other OC'ers are doing while driving through town. Are you open carrying while driving and locking/unlocking as you go in and out of school zones. Or do you simply lock while rolling and unlock and OC upon arrival at your final destination? Obviously the latter seems more practical, but I guess it depends on your perspective and even perhaps the friendliness of the neighborhood you're traveling through. Obviously, I have not started open carrying but really like the idea as well as expressing my freedom and support of our 2nd amendment. However, I equally like the idea of not getting arrested. So I am proceeding cautiously. |
|||||||||
|
coolusername2007 Regular Member
|
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that while driving you cannot have a full magazine that is concealed or even locked away in case. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member 
|
If they cant see it in a locked container you have nothing to worry about UNLESS they have a search warrant |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
coolusername2007 wrote: By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that while driving you cannot have a full magazine that is concealed or even locked away in case. You can have full magazines that are locked up. When I go to the range I load my magazines before leaving my house to save time once I get there. Perfectly legal. Concealed magazines are a no-no thanks to People v. Hale |
|||||||||
|
coolusername2007 Regular Member
|
OK, just to recap, since I'm new and slow ;-) While driving around town... Open full magazine = legal Locked up full magazine = legal Concealed full magazine = illegal |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member 
|
bigtoe416 wrote: coolusername2007 wrote:By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that while driving you cannot have a full magazine that is concealed or even locked away in case. People v. Hale involved a visible incomplete weapon that was missing an integral component. The component was found that made the visible weapon complete, which was the magazine that was hidden. The case does not involve a visible complete gun (one with an empty mag) and an additional mag that was full but not visible. Just a point of clarification. |
|||||||||
|
bigtoe416 Regular Member
|
Good point. I'm always goofing up that case law. The ruling says the following:In our opinion concealment of an essential component of a visible weapon, when done in such a fashion as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm, presents a threat to public order comparable to concealment of the entire firearm and falls within the prohibition of section 12025. Sons of Liberty owns me. |
|||||||||
|
CA_Libertarian State Researcher
|
Due to the language of Hale, the concealed mag issue only applies under certain cirumstances. The following two elements must exist for 12025 to apply to a mag: 1. It is concealed in a way that makes for "easily completing" the firearm. 2. No exemptions to 12025 apply. (e.g. locked container) If all you possess is the magazine, you can conceal any way you want. If your firearm is concealed in a locked container, it would be hard to say concealing a mag in your pocket makes it somehow easier to "complete" the locked up firearm. Now, there's the idea that having an empty magazine in your firearm "completes" the weapon for the purposes of Hale. While this is logical, I don't see any reason the court would be encouraged (let alone required) to interpret it that way. IMO, don't be a test case for the "but I had an empty mag in the well" defense. |
|||||||||
|
stuckinchico Regular Member
|
SPELL this out NOT in a position capable of being fired Id love to see an officer fire a weapon that has an empty mag. We should all know what happens right....... I do believe that is the test standard that the court has applied to that. just like solely possessing a loaded mag in your pocket with no firearm in your immediate control mag is worthless and i believe under that definition not a weapon but this is just my interpretations reading all these bloody attorney footnotes Talk about a labyrinth.. Geez SPEAK ENGLISH Last edited on Fri Jul 10th, 2009 11:29 am by stuckinchico |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member 
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: Due to the language of Hale, the concealed mag issue only applies under certain cirumstances. The following two elements must exist for 12025 to apply to a mag: True. If you have a visible firearm, with an empty magazine in the mag well, and a concealed full magazine easily accessible, it would be very easy to just drop the empty and slap in the full magazine and you then have a fully functional firearm, which is the heart of the People v. Hale arguement. A concealed full magazine within easy reach of the firearm that it fits into equals a concealed firearm. |
|||||||||
|
Decoligny Regular Member
|
stuckinchico wrote: SPELL this out NOT in a position capable of being fired Id love to see an officer fire a weapon that has an empty mag. We should all know what happens right....... I do believe that is the test standard that the court has applied to that. just like solely possessing a loaded mag in your pocket with no firearm in your immediate control mag is worthless and i believe under that definition not a weapon but this is just my interpretations reading all these bloody attorney footnotes Talk about a labyrinth.. Geez SPEAK ENGLISH People v. Hale has NOTHING in it that deals with whether or not a firearm is LOADED. That is where the "in a position capable of being fired comes in, in 12031 not 12025. People v. Hale simply says paraphrased) that if the concealed magazine can make the gun functional, via easy access to both the gun and the full magazine, then the concealed magazine is the equivalent of a concealed firearm. |
|||||||||
|
Sons of Liberty Regular Member
|
I think that there is a subtlety I was trying to bring out. I didn't do a very good job. The court stated, "On the facts of the case we conclude that Officer Price had reasonable cause to search the front seat of Hale's automobile and that consequently his discovery of contraband was an incident of a lawful search...The facts known to the officer at the time of the search gave him reasonable cause to suspect Hale was committing a crime, viz. unlicensed carrying of a firearm concealed in a vehicle...Only partial concealment of a firearm is required...One portion of the automatic pistol, the housing and barrel, was visible, and it was reasonable for the officer to suspect concealment nearby of the remaining portion of the firearm, the automatic clip and ammunition." So, if Officer Price came up to a UOC'er with his semi-automatic (with empty magazine inserted) laying openly on the dashboard, he would not have the "reasonable cause" discussed in People v. Hale to conduct a further search of the vehicle. If he conducted a further search and found nothing, it seems to me that it would be an unlawful search. If he conducted a further search and he found a non-empty magazine concealed, it would be an unlawful search and the evidence would be suppressed. Please correct me if I'm missing something. But, I agree that its not worth the headache of carrying a non-empty magazine concealed. (Edited font) Last edited on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 07:42 am by Sons of Liberty |
|||||||||