Does anyone carry in a locked container?

imported post

Justice76 wrote:

CA-Libertarian, 12026.1(2) is about carrying to and from your car for any "lawful purpose", not just while in the car. There are no deviation restrictions specifically mentioned. So, I guess it would be up to the LEO of judge if your deviation to/from your car was considered reasonable.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The exemption provided by 12026.1(a)2 may be for "any lawful purpose", but it must be directly to or from any motor vehicle. Thus, the deviation restrictions are absolute: no deviations.

imported post

double-post

imported post

Got it, you're totally right, I just saw that phrase now. It definitely IS directly to/from your car.

It's just that the phrase "for any lawful purpose" isn't defined and doesn't reference 12026.2. So, is walking directly from my car, to a restaurant, and then directly from the restaurant, a "lawful purpose"?

imported post

I think, since the vehicular exemption provided by 12026.1(a)1 applies anywhere, merely intending to use the exemption qualifies as "lawful purposes" for the 12026.1(a)2 exemption. However, there isn't any exemption for being inside a restaurant with a cased/unloaded gun, and without an exemption concealed carry of a handgun qualifies as a violation of 12025, which renders your purposes certainly "unlawful". So, no exemption in the restaurant, no exemption from your car to the restaurant. I guess you'd better leave it in the car. :?

Or UOC. :celebrate

imported post

off-topic, but opencarry.org needs it's own custom set of emoticons that have guns openly carried on them.

Your post above would just be so much more poignant, if that banana was carrying!

imported post

Robin47 wrote:

While on the subject, of how to carry,.

I have a question ! Say if I was traveling on a grayhound bus, and "Open Carry"

would be legal, however " Their policy" is they don't want you to carry openly,

or they might say you can't do that on our buses.

So my question is can you carry it in a locked backpack legally ?

Robin47

Click to expand...

Grayhound's policy is actually that you cannot have any firearms on their buses at all, not even in your stowed luggage. However, this is not a legal issue. They could refuse to allow you to ride the bus if they find out you're violating their policy. I probably wouldn't ride a public bus without being armed, at least with a gun locked up in my carry-on bag.

Wasn't there a crazy guy recently on a bus that stabbed and then beheaded some random passenger while everybody else watched in helpless horror? Too bad none of them were packin'.

imported post

Yeah your right CA_Libertarian,

To bad none had a knife, or the guts to stop that maniac in Canada, I think thats where it was.

I guess one would have to rent a car or a u-haul truck to get home if your car broke down and you can't ride the Grayhound bus back home with a gun in any kind of case.

:banghead: No breaks for the poor people, must have a lot of money.

I hope Heller gets Incorperated soon ! :lol:LoL ! Robin47

imported post

if you were carrying it outside of your car in a locked container like a briefcase or a gun case couldnt a Leo nab you for CC without a license???:?

imported post

It depends on if you are exempted under12026.1 (in a motor vehicle), or 12026.2 (anywhere else).

imported post

I have carried my P226 in a locked case, but I really do walk around with a day planner locked closed just in case I get stopped.

I also have a Dillion Plan B which looks IDENTICAL to the aforementioned case. It's a decent case, but it's made in China and the holster is awkward to use. I'm modifying it for a pull tab to increase speed of the draw. I'm also adding additional strapping for the magazines, as they currently just slide around.

It looks innocent enough, and has no markings. It will not be opened without a warrant, like any of my other property.

imported post

This is sort of what I was wondering about.
Have you ever had to talk to LEO's about your gun locked up, but with you?
What do you mean about not agreeing to let them search you?
If you are stopped by police in California, are we supposed to tell them that we have a firearm?
Thanks for your response!

imported post

Justice76 wrote:

are we supposed to tell them that we have a firearm?
Thanks for your response!

Click to expand...

It's your choice. When asked if "do you have any weapons" I recommend saying, " I don't have anything illegal". If pressed then repeat. Better get it on tape!

imported post

I've never encountered a LEO or anyone with the belief that I was carrying. Only the comment "Must be important, huh?" from random people.

I mean that I have the right to be secure in my person and effects and will not consent to a search. A warrant is the only way to get any of my locked property open.

As Cato said, I will tell them that I have nothing illegal. I have no need to lie, but no need to elaborate on the truth. "I do not consent to a search, as I have nothing illegal."

imported post

Here are my thoughts on the subject.

First of all, if it is legal to carry openly, then if I'm carrying on foot in a locked container then I am not in legal jeopardy, as this is a lawful purpose, i.e. because I can.

Second, if I AM open carrying, then the officer, by statute, has the right to demand inspection and examination to determine the firearm is loaded or unloaded. For which probable cause to arrest can develop should I carry openly and refuse to allow the inspection.

Third, and most important as it relates to carrying in a locked container, if I am under criminal investigation (as this is all LEOs scope of authority), I ALWAYS have the right to remain silent. I.e., I am under no obligation to communicate ANYTHING to the LEO. So unless the LEO is gifted with superhuman powers such as the ability to see through objects, or my so-called gun case is in the shape and form/design of a firearm, how would the LEO "know" I am carrying to even make the demand for inspection?

Probable cause is "articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person stop/detained has committed or is about to commit a crime."

I also remember that "[A]n investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith."

I can't see, based on probable cause related case decisions that I've read, that having a holster on, by itself as a fact, can give probable cause for the officer to "know" that I would have a firearm in my lock box, unless my lock box is in the shape of a firearm, which it isn't. Especially when the lock box that I carry is also used to keep other valuables in.

We tend to over think the most simplest of things at times. Of course it is better to be safe than sorry. But they only "know" what I tell them or can visibly see.

I add another element to the encounter (not at the curb side, but at a tort claim), because I understand that LEOs have no duty to protect, and that every stop they conduct is considered by the courts as "voluntary" on the part of the LEO. So therefore, I can then conduct myself in a way that results in a favorable conclusion. If I interact, that interaction is construed as "consensual on the part of me the detainee. This is why they enjoy qualified immunity. This is powerful in almost all defenses. Absent a "special relationship" the whole contact and interaction is considered voluntary on both parties.

So behave accordingly.

imported post

Good post, except for it isn't strictly legal to carry in a locked container on foot.

imported post

Ask yourself this, do you trust a jury of your peers to be as reasonable as we are? I could see a prosecutor easily getting a conviction based on your scenario. If you see a guy with an empty holster and a pistol case, it's extremely likely he's got a gun in that case.

Bottom line: if an officer demands to inspect your firearm, you're treading on shakey ground if you refuse, even if your gun is locked up. I don't agree with the statute, but we gotta pick our battles.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Good post, except for it isn't strictly legal to carry in a locked container on foot

Click to expand...

"Isn't strictly legal..."? What's your authority for the phrase "strictly legal?"

Notwithstanding, your opinion flies in the face of reason and logic. If it is "legal" to
carry openly, just because you then take the unloaded firearm and place it in a locked box doesn't make it "illegal," so long as the area you travel is one in which it is not "illegal" to do so.

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Ask yourself this, do you trust a jury of your peers to be as reasonable as we are? I could see a prosecutor easily getting a conviction based on your scenario. If you see a guy with an empty holster and a pistol case, it's extremely likely he's got a gun in that case.

Bottom line: if an officer demands to inspect your firearm, you're treading on shakey ground if you refuse, even if your gun is locked up. I don't agree with the statute, but we gotta pick our battles.

Click to expand...

First off, I wouldn't have to worry about a jury because I'd never get to that point. EVERY case dealing with probable cause issues, always turn upon what FACTS are known to the arresting officer. One fact does not give rise to probable cause. And even if it did the officer has to "KNOW" there's a firearm in my lockbox. NOT have a hunch or do deductive reasoning. Look up the definition of "fact" for you own clarification. Only if I were dumb enough to witness against myself and tell the officer that I have a firearm in it would I find myself having to give over my firearm for inspection. There are hundreds of different carrying cases. There are hundreds of different lockboxes. Mine's can carry currency, precious stones, my wallet, documents, etc. Which some of what I mentioned I do sometimes place in there. So, how would anyone know what's in there apart from trying to "guess" unless I tell them." Why do you think they ask you questions, before they do anything. Because if you speak you open the door for more coverstation and questions from which they can covert a consensual encounter into a detainment from which probable cause can develop without you even knowing. However, if I'm silent, there can be no possibility of legal jeopardy.

The evidence rule for witness competency is "personal knowledge." Personal knowledge, as it relates to this conversation, comes from "seeing it yourself." So unless an LEO personally witnessed me place a firearm in the lockbox I carry, he has no personal knowledge, thereby rendering his stop/detainment based upon a "hunch," or guess.

But, supposing my holster is exposed, THAT is the only FACT that he can articulate. And I'm under no obligation to speak to any LEO.

Who would be stupid enough to allow a holster to show with no firearm in it while carrying their firearm in a "lockbox?" I mean really.

If you re-read my statement, I said I carry a "lockbox." AND I also stated "my" lockbox is one in which is ALSO used to carry other valuables. I.e. NOT just for firearms.

If you know (or at least know how to find) the rules of interpretation, rules of construction, and how they operate, then you won't have to do battle. You know what they say when you assume.

And where did I suggest "refusing" anything. I stated how probable cause could develop, of which would be a refusal. Never said I would. If I'm carrying openly, I know he/she has the right to demand examination of my firearm. And since I would be in the bounds of the regulation I would have no worries of legal jeopardy or "battle" as you say. I guess you read the statutes as fast as you've read my post.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Strictly speaking you would not be in compliance with the law, unless you were traveling to/from one of the exemptions listed in 12026.2

The on-foot exemption provided by 12026.1 applies only when traveling "directly to or from any motor vehicle".

Click to expand...

What's with this "strictly speaking?" It is either legal or illegal. One keeps you out of the grey bar hotel, the other gets you that visit.

You overlook 12026.1(b):

"With this chapter." Hello. The restrictions are enumerated in 12025, and it prohibits "loaded" and "concealed" carry. NOT unloaded and open carry. It is a mistake to believe that you cannot unloaded carry in a lockbox, where it is otherwise lawful to carry openly. I.e. "lawful purpose." To suggest otherwise is nonsensical. Now if you posit that it is considered "concealed," then maybe (maybe) we have a different conversation at hand.

My purpose: for my protection, and since I am not engaged in, or planning to be engaged in unlawful activity, I am therefore in compliance with the rules.

imported post

Yes, but it's "to or from any motor vehicle" "for any lawful purpose" We still don't know if that means for any lawful purpose to use the gun or for any generally lawful activity, implying that if you do something bad you will ALSO be cited for 12025.