Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Clear Plexiglass Locked Container Holster?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Discovery Bay, California, USA
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    Has anyone fabricated a plexiglass holster/enclosure that forms a complete lockable container?

    If you made the outside coverin clear, itcould bethe perfect tool for showing how rediculous the carry laws are. From my understanding you'd be legal, even inside school zones (altho not directly on school grounds).Possibly an option for those who arn't willing to risk OC but want to make a statement? You'd probably get more questions than traditional OC (since they wouldn't assume you were off duty, etc).

    If you had an eazy open combo orbiometric lock and a quick-access mag slot inside the case, it could even be semi-practical from a personal protection standpoint.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    I'm not expert I nothing I say shall be construed as legal advice.

    It should be legal.

    I brought up a similar thread here about a locking handgun holster. If it was obviously a container holding a handgun it may not even need to be clear, but clear might help. (It seems that you have to be going to be in a vehicle or transported to and from your vehicle or to an event recognized in 12025 to be exempted from the concealed firearms provision just by being in a locked container.)


    If someone was carrying a holstered unloaded pistol with a barrel larger than 16" I think it would also technically be exempt from the school zone ban without being locked up, as would carrying a rifle. (These may even allow for unloaded concealed carry also, since they would not be pistols, revolvers, or concealable firearms under 12001 as I read the law.)

    My thread about locking holster: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/27175.html

    My thread about long barreled handguns: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/28630.html

  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I think this (or something very similar) has come up once before.

    It's a great idea, and I think would be an attention-grabber.

    The obvious advantage is that you wouldn't have to worry about 626.9, yet would not be subject to the 12025 restrictions on "poor man's CCW" (aka LUCC - Locked Unloaded Container Carry).

    A big, transparant briefcase would be infinitely more noticeable than a holstered firearm. Also, in my 2+ years of open carry experience, I've found that most people simply do not notice. They see a dark object on your belt from the corner of their eye, but their brain says, "don't bother looking down, it's just a cell phone, and you don't want that guy to think you're checking him out."

    The down side is that you would probably get more attention from LE. Further, they tend to make **** up when they encounter something foreign to their experience. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear claims that the weapon is concealed, despite being clearly visible. Or the reverse, that a container is not "secure" unless it is opaque.

    Also, it would make 12031(e) checks a little more akward, and possibly more lengthy. If you use a combo lock, you're likely going to have to give the combo to the officer. I doubt they would let you unlock the case, and legally it could be treacherous for you to do so, as the case would then be unlocked but the gun still concealed.

    I would love to see it done, but I don't think I have the gonads to try it myself.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    If someone was carrying a holstered unloaded pistol with a barrel larger than 16" I think it would also technically be exempt from the school zone ban without being locked up, as would carrying a rifle. (These may even allow for unloaded concealed carry also, since they would not be pistols, revolvers, or concealable firearms under 12001 as I read the law.)
    This probably belongs in your "long pistol" thread, but I'll post it here.

    There are 6 types of firearms that I've seen in the penal code:
    1. Pistol
    2. Revolver
    3. "Concealable Firearm" (this is a catch-all for unconventional short guns that may not be a "pistol" or "revolver")
    4. Rifle
    5. Shotgun
    6. "Assualt Weapon"
    So, in your example of a long-barrelled pistol, it clearly is a "pistol", which is clearly regulated by 626.9, no matter how long the barrel is.

    If a butt stock were permanently attached (some pistol frames can be converted into rifles), then it would become a rifle, and 626.9 would no longer apply (though you'd probably need to run it through the AW flow chart to be sure it's legal).
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    DiscoBayJoe wrote:
    Has anyone fabricated a plexiglass holster/enclosure that forms a complete lockable container?

    If you made the outside coverin clear, itcould bethe perfect tool for showing how rediculous the carry laws are. From my understanding you'd be legal, even inside school zones (altho not directly on school grounds).Possibly an option for those who arn't willing to risk OC but want to make a statement? You'd probably get more questions than traditional OC (since they wouldn't assume you were off duty, etc).

    If you had an eazy open combo orbiometric lock and a quick-access mag slot inside the case, it could even be semi-practical from a personal protection standpoint.

    Thoughts?
    I don't think it logically shows how carry laws are ridiculous.

    But it's a very cool idea. It proves something, I just don't know what. I would love to see it built and deployed to learn the purpose and effect.



  6. #6
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    In my other thread I brought up these points:

    626.9 doesn't say what definition it uses for pistol, but if it used the 12001 definition then it wouldn't be a pistol since the terms "pistol", "revolver" and "firearm capable of being concealed," apply to firearms with barrels of shorter length than 16"

    But I suppose it is possible it uses different definitions for these terms than provided in 12001, which if that is true it could apply to rifles with barrels over 16" too since it is 12001 is what says a concealable firearm applies to a firearm with a barrel length under 16".

    626.9 does use the definition of firearm from 12001 but doesn't explicitly use any of the other definitions. If it doesn't use the 12001 definitions I wonder what definitions it does use.

    .....................

    To me it seems that such a long barreled handgun would not be a
    1. ) Pistol
    2. ) Revolver
    3. ) Firearm capable of being concealed
    (The above 3 apply to the same in 12001)
    Nor would it be
    4. ) Shotgun
    5. ) Rifle
    and by not being one of these three categories (pistol/revolver/concealable or shotgun or rifle)
    it would also not be eligible to be an
    6. ) Assault weapon.

    Such a weapon would clearly match the definition of firearm as provided in the Penal Code, but seems to me would escape all of the definitions provided in the Penal Code for the above listed types of firearm.

    12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
    "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
    shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
    weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
    explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
    than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that
    has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be
    interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
    (2) As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol,"
    "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."
    It is true that 12001 does not explicitly say that a pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed would not apply to a firearm that had a non-interchangeable barrel with a length over 16 inches, but it does say that it would apply to a firearm that had a barrel length over 16" or had interchangeable barrels.

    What would the purpose be to state that the definition did apply to these firearms however if was not exclude firearms that it did not apply to? Because if it did not in effect exclude a rifle that was not a short-barreled rifle from being a "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" then wouldn't long guns not in locked cases possibly be the cause of successful prosecution for having a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in a school zone for example? Couldn't a prosecutor put a Mosin Nagant 91/30 under his arm and then put a trench coat on that touches the floor, proving that a Mosin Nagant can in fact be concealed, although the length of the barrel alone is about 29 inches long?

    My logic is that if a rifle is actually capable of being concealed as a common person would agree upon seeing it done despite it not being legally classified as an SBR and having long barrel and it is therefore somehow excluded from the requirements of being transported in a locked case in a school zone because it does not match the definition of a "firearm capable of being concealed" in 12001, shouldn't a firearm which is actually a pistol as a common person would define one also be exempt if it does not match the definition of "pistol" provided in 12001?

    Once again, I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice and I could be way off base.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    If it is in a locked container 12031 doesnt apply in order for an officer to defeat a lock he needs a warrant. period end of sentence. Refuse to open Sorry I dont know the combo lost the key... what lock officer?? what do you mean you cant open it.

    They can not force you to do anything... They can try to talk their way in your pants all day but in the end NO MEANS NO

    :what:

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    stuckinchico wrote:
    If it is in a locked container 12031 doesnt apply
    Though it "feels" right, it's simply not the case. There's no exception in 12031 for a locked container. Normally I would ask for a citation, but I am all-to-familiar with the case law proving the oposite.

    In People v DeLong the defendant had some rifles locked in his trunk in a public parking lot. The CA Court of Appeals upheld that since the officer could articulate reasonable knowledge that the guns were present (witness reported seeing them), he had a right to perform a 12031(e) examination.

    Coincidentally, DeLong "lost his key" to the trunk. The officer testified that he found a key on the ground next to the car, and it opened the trunk. (I am suspicious that "on the ground" was really in DeLong's pocket.) Even if you really don't have the key or don't give the combo, the officer may just arrest you under 12031(e) for refusing the "examination". Or maybe your lock disappears and several officers claim it was never on the container to begin with... not that such falsified reporting happens often...

    If your container is transparent, it would be easy for them to articulate how they knew a firearm was present. Further, I believe a cop would easily get away with "it's a gun case, so logically it has guns in it" - though you might win on appeal... if you have the money to get that far.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    In my other thread I brought up these points:

    626.9 doesn't say what definition it uses for pistol, but if it used the 12001 definition then it wouldn't be a pistol since the terms "pistol", "revolver" and "firearm capable of being concealed," apply to firearms with barrels of shorter length than 16"...
    I think you're technically correct. If no definition is provided, I believe the court is obliged to apply a definition applied elsewhere in statute. Since 626.9 uses identical wording as 12001 - "pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" - I believe the logical conclusion is that the legislature intended the same definition to apply.

    However, I don't think I'd want to be the test case. I could see a trial judge pointing out that this unusual firearm must fall into one of the categories defined by law, and would simply declare whatever (s)he thinks is right, and let the higher courts sort it out.

    I wouldn't want to be the test case.

    (If I had a nickel for every time I've typed that phrase... I could afford to be a test case.)
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    You could even make the plexiglass holster so that one combination would release the gun using a spring and at the same time load it, but another combination would just release the gun in an unloaded state. I think this is what Gene is hinting at when he speaks of LUCC being possibly more effective tactically than UOCing.

  11. #11
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    Here is an interesting article that I read today that relates to this topic. http://thegunwiki.com/Gunwiki/RefBla...ltPouchHolster
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    TRAIN DERAILED !!!!! EDIT TO KEEP YOU ON TRACK

  13. #13
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    stuckinchico: I'd reread your posts from tonight and make sure you want everything you have said to be publicly available forever. A lot of it sounds like a prosecutors dream info.

  14. #14
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Military courts have cleared me Good luck to any DA stupid enough to go toe to toe with me

    PS STATUES OF LIMITATION EXPIRED

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    stuckinchico wrote:
    Military courts have cleared me Good luck to any DA stupid enough to go toe to toe with me

    PS STATUES OF LIMITATION EXPIRED
    In your post, you make it sound as if you are currently a student, and that you violate 626.9 and 12025 regularly.

    Your post also boldly exhibits what is likely a mental health issue. All it takes to strip you of your rights is to have you found to be a danger to yourself or others.

    I don't know if you're a danger to anyone, but from what I've read, I would recommend seeking some sort of help. It sounds like you've been through some traumatizing events, and maybe you need help to find a way to cope with that trauma in a healthy way.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    Umm I do have healthy ways to cope. Its why running shoes where invented Im not threat to anyone except those who mean to do harm to myself or those I love

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •