Traveling from Texas to Mississippi

temerick · Feb 23, 2012

I really want to get this right.

My situation:
1. I'm a TX resident and not a concealed carry permit holder (no permit of any kind)

2. My handgun will be left in my vehicle at all times

My questions while in Lousianna:
1. In my vehicle, does the handgun need to be exposed or can it be in a glove box?

2. Can the handgun be loaded and a round chambered

3. If pulled over for any reason, is it a requirement to disclose possession?

4. Are off the shelf hollow points illegal?

Thank you for any advice.

Tom

Wolfgang1952 · Feb 24, 2012

Louisiana is and Open Carry State. No permit needed to OC. You can put your Gun anywhere in your car you want, loaded or not, up to you. You can set on it if you want to, but I don’t know why you would want to. The only thing is if you get stopped for anything I advise you tell the Officer that you have a gun in the car. Thats is just me.

sraacke · Feb 27, 2012

temerick said:
I really want to get this right.

My situation:
1. I'm a TX resident and not a concealed carry permit holder (no permit of any kind)

2. My handgun will be left in my vehicle at all times

My questions while in Lousianna:
1. In my vehicle, does the handgun need to be exposed or can it be in a glove box?

2. Can the handgun be loaded and a round chambered

3. If pulled over for any reason, is it a requirement to disclose possession?

4. Are off the shelf hollow points illegal?

Thank you for any advice.

Tom

Tom,
First, the usual disclaimer- I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV and I havn't slept at a Holiday Inn Express lately. lol

1- Welcome to La.
2- Yes. Lock and load.
3- No, unless you are concealing it on your person which, since you don't have a CHP, won't be an issue. It's up to you if you want to disclose it being in the vehicle but "Don't ask, don't tell" usually works. If the officer asks, tell him honestly but then decide if you want to to the "I don't consent to any searches" dance with him or not.
4-All off the shelf stuff is legal. You can buy hollow point ammo at any ammo retailer and load it in your gun.

Travel safely and feel free to visit our website at www.laopencarry.org for more info about Open Carry and La laws.

Seigi · Feb 28, 2012

IANAL, but...

I'm not sure sitting on it would be legal. That'd be concealed, intentionally, and possibly "on the person." For a better understanding of what is considered “on the person”, see Fernandez, State ex rel. v. Perez, 92 So. 45 (La. 1922) (gun on floor of car was “on the person”); State v. Brunson, 111 So. 321 (La. 1927) (gun in compartment of car was not “on the person”); State v. Jones, 121 So. 300 (La. 1929) (gun in knapsack on shoulder was “on the person”). (Yes, I know those are ancient cases. They're what I have.)

RS 14:95 (a)(1) says that Illegal carrying of weapons is: "The intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person; or" http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=78739

Incomplete concealment "on the person" can land you in trouble if it looks like you were trying to hide it- it's an intent standard. State v. Fluker, 311 So.2d 863 (La 1975). Since you're coming from TX where (IIRC) there is no OC in cars I'm guessing you have no good car holster or equivalent, so you might want to put it in a box. To answer your first question: "Yes, either of those two will make it legal."

To my knowledge there is no duty to inform police (except, possibly, to keep an LA CHP from being invalidated, and I gather you don't have one), but if you'd like to avoid the issue I strongly suggest placing your license, registration, and proof of insurance in an entirely different compartment than your weapon. Otherwise, the cop is going to find out and it would be best if he were told rather than shown.

georg jetson · Feb 28, 2012

Seigi said:
IANAL, but...

I'm not sure sitting on it would be legal. That'd be concealed, intentionally, and possibly "on the person." For a better understanding of what is considered “on the person”, see Fernandez, State ex rel. v. Perez, 92 So. 45 (La. 1922) (gun on floor of car was “on the person”); State v. Brunson, 111 So. 321 (La. 1927) (gun in compartment of car was not “on the person”); State v. Jones, 121 So. 300 (La. 1929) (gun in knapsack on shoulder was “on the person”). (Yes, I know those are ancient cases. They're what I have.)

RS 14:95 (a)(1) says that Illegal carrying of weapons is: "The intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person; or" http://legis.la.gov/lss/lss.asp?doc=78739

Incomplete concealment "on the person" can land you in trouble if it looks like you were trying to hide it- it's an intent standard. State v. Fluker, 311 So.2d 863 (La 1975). Since you're coming from TX where (IIRC) there is no OC in cars I'm guessing you have no good car holster or equivalent, so you might want to put it in a box. To answer your first question: "Yes, either of those two will make it legal."

SNIP

I don't think cases prior to 1942 would apply. Though I couldn't find those earlier cases you cite, I did see this quote in State V Fluker...

"The present statute was originally enacted in 1942 and was enrolled as part of the Revised Statutes in 1950. See La.Acts 1942, No. 43, § 1, art. 95. Subsequent amendments have not related to the section in question here, which defines the crime of illegally carrying a weapon as, inter alia,"

Further from State v Fluker

"Clearly, the present version of the statute differs from its predecessors by requiring intentional concealment. Thus, the old formula, which required that the weapon be carried in full open view, is obsolete. By making the offense of concealment 866*866 a crime of specific intent, the legislature has abandoned the old rule that a partially hidden weapon is a concealed weapon in favor of a more realistic proscription that contemplates that a weapon, although not in "full, open view," is nonetheless not a "concealed" weapon if it is sufficiently exposed to reveal its identity. If the weapon is carried in a manner that reveals its identity, its carrier cannot be presumed to have intended to conceal it and, accordingly, is not in violation of the statute."

Have you looked for cases more recent? I haven't had much luck finding any.

Seigi · Feb 28, 2012

Intentional concealment is the standard for concealment, but sitting on it will hide it from view entirely, and an inference that it was intended to be concealed could then be drawn. (See Fluker's 3rd footnote. In part:"If a part is subject to view, not through an intention for it to be openly displayed but merely by virtue of sloppy concealment, then it seems there may be intentional concealment even though there is not full concealment".) Then the question would be if it was "on one's person", as well as whether La Const. Art. 1 Sec 11 protected it. The latter is an as of yet undecided matter, I believe.

Unfortunately, I don't have any more recent cases on that point of law. Those are the only ones I was able to find that discussed what "on the person" really meant. Later cases often merged it into "concealed on the person" and discussed concealment, which is understandable when the facts put it in or attached to defendant's pants. One of the cases given were cited as late as '69 but such cites were on different points of law. I'm not happy with the age, but that's the best I can come up with.

I don't think the fact that the cases predate the statute renders them wholly useless. The cases defined what "on the person" meant in the context of weapon carrying and when the legislature used those words they arguably adopted that meaning. If it is arguable, a DA could try to use it. Since the objective is to not have to litigate the matter as a criminal defendant, I would personally avoid mixing what could be construed as "intent to conceal" and "on the person" if I didn't have an applicable CHP.

georg jetson · Feb 29, 2012

Seigi said:
Intentional concealment is the standard for concealment, but sitting on it will hide it from view entirely, and an inference that it was intended to be concealed could then be drawn. (See Fluker's 3rd footnote. In part:"If a part is subject to view, not through an intention for it to be openly displayed but merely by virtue of sloppy concealment, then it seems there may be intentional concealment even though there is not full concealment".) Then the question would be if it was "on one's person", as well as whether La Const. Art. 1 Sec 11 protected it. The latter is an as of yet undecided matter, I believe.

Unfortunately, I don't have any more recent cases on that point of law. Those are the only ones I was able to find that discussed what "on the person" really meant. Later cases often merged it into "concealed on the person" and discussed concealment, which is understandable when the facts put it in or attached to defendant's pants. One of the cases given were cited as late as '69 but such cites were on different points of law. I'm not happy with the age, but that's the best I can come up with.

I don't think the fact that the cases predate the statute renders them wholly useless. The cases defined what "on the person" meant in the context of weapon carrying and when the legislature used those words they arguably adopted that meaning. If it is arguable, a DA could try to use it. Since the objective is to not have to litigate the matter as a criminal defendant, I would personally avoid mixing what could be construed as "intent to conceal" and "on the person" if I didn't have an applicable CHP.

Yes, I think you're right. The only issue that changed statutorily was the "intent". Indeed, there is no exception in the law for "on the person" in your vehicle. Thanks for your response on this!!!

Because of the vagueness of "on the person", it is probably best to have the firearm out of site(glove box not on person?). There is no duty to notify an officer if you have a firearm in your car and doing so gives the officer the legal authority to remove it and "run" the serial number, adding time to your citizen/officer contact. That's never a good idea.

Traveling from Texas to Mississippi

temerick

New member

Wolfgang1952

Regular Member

sraacke

Regular Member

Seigi

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member

Seigi

Regular Member

georg jetson

Regular Member