Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: To ALL the LEGAL BEAGLES

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    HOME OR MOTOR VEHICLE for Second Amendment purposes?

    To all who are aware of my situation, please put your thinking hats on and consider thisfact and thequestions raised bysame:

    Many individuals in the United States live full time in "HOMES" that are mobile.

    Does the right to possess and openly carry a LOADED handgun extend to those of us who live in Mobile recreation homes?

    Is a permit required to possess and carry a loaded firearm in a recreation vehicle when it is the home of the occupants?

    Do individuals who live full time in their recreation vehicles have to give up the right to openly carry or have immediate access to their firearms when the Mobile recreation vehicle is in motion?

    When the Supreme Court rendered their decision in Heller, did the decision extend to those of us who have "HOMES" that are mobile in and through multiple states and jurisdictions?

    It's something to think about and consider.

    All opinions are welcome.


    edperuta@amcable.tv









  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    There definately are California Codes that address camping related vehicles, although I can't direct you to them at the moment. But once you put your temporary home in motion on the highway, you become a motor vehicle in addition to a campsite. It would boil down to individual circumstance...as usual.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Prior to the Heller decision I would have agreed, but the legal playing field has changed. My HOME is now mobile and there is NO case law on point. YET!!

    If I was in a truck or car pulling a trailer, I could agree, but the vehicle I live in is in fact my HOME on wheels. The driver's seat is INSIDE MYHOME REGARDLESS IF IT'S STATIONARY OR MOVING.

    I believe that this is only the beginning of many questions that will arise asadditional Second Amendment cases enter and move through the courts.

    I have discussed this situation with many members of law enforcement and they ALL see the issue and believe that it presents a very interesting set of facts that will eventually have to be addressed.

    I am not alone in this type of situation, there are many others who live in motor home RVs and travel the country between state and local jurisdictions.


    It's only a matter of time before this becomes an issue addressed by the courts.





  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    I'm interested to see how this turns out for you. My grandparents lived in a motorhome for over 10 years, though I was quite young at the time and not sure how things worked out for them or if firearms were an issue. Even so, it still brings the point home for me, and I eagerly await finding out how things work out.

    I think that McDonald vs Chicago could resolve any/all issues you might be having with that. Should the 2nd get incorporated, then you'd be in a much better situation for pursuing any hassles that may occur. So much riding on that case...

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    ED... with your thinking then all of the recently homeless folks that are now living in their cars can take the same path. It will never be. I agreethat if you are in a campground and parked, it is a home. On any roadway,highway... it's a vehicle. Now there are some different rules for housecars. People in the living space of a motorhome can have open containers of alcohol as long as there is none in the driver's compartment.



  6. #6
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    ConsideringOC wrote:
    It will never be.
    The rules change June 2010. You will have a right to publicly carry a loaded firearm for self defense. What form that takes will be decided shortly thereafter.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    ConsideringOC wrote:
    ED... with your thinking then all of the recently homeless folks that are now living in their cars can take the same path. It will never be. I agreethat if you are in a campground and parked, it is a home. On any roadway,highway... it's a vehicle. Now there are some different rules for housecars. People in the living space of a motorhome can have open containers of alcohol as long as there is none in the driver's compartment.


    If a person is forced to live in a car, then I am absolutely in favor of the person being able to carry for self defense. As to the "driver's compartment", I live in a Class A motorhome that is open from front to back.

    Here is a link to thedocument whichshows my mobile residence/HOME.

    http://ctgunrights.com/00.ca.docs/1997_Intrigue.pdf


    The Heller decsion has changed everything.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    51

    Post imported post

    Ok... so the driver's compartment would be from the back of the driver's/passenger seat forward to the dash and what is within arms reach of those seats.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    There are many factors to consider since the Heller decsion, some of which are unique to this particular circumstance.

    I believe that the interior of the motor HOME is a home when stationary, regardless of location.

    When the vehicle is in motion it may be considered a "VEHICLE" for open or conceal carry and access to a loaded firearm purpose, but once it stops, it is a "HOME".

    I'm not going to do anything to push the point, but immediately began to think about the situation after reading the Heller decision.

    Others involved in law enforcement have also discussed this with me and we all agree that it is a new day since Heller and all the old ways of thinking are off the table.

    Every aspect of firearm acquisition, ownership and manner of carry is now, (and will be),open to review, and it will only intensify if the Chicago case is decided in favor of incorporation.

    As apart time legal investigator in Connecticut, I have had the opportunity to discuss the impact of the new Second Amendment decisions and all agree that it is a new area of law thatwill spawn countless law suits on a variety of firearm related topics.


    An example that has received very little exposure is the Kuck & Goldbeg cases that were recently before the 2nd Circuit Court ofAppeals in New York.

    Here are two links to give youa glimpse of whatis happening:

    Specific Clip:

    http://www.ctgunrights.com/07.Video/...20Hearings.wmv

    Complete audio Clip of oral argument:

    http://www.ctgunrights.com/06.Audio/...20Goldberg.mp3






  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    San Jose, California, USA
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    Speaking off the cuff, wouldn't most laws pertain to residence rather than home?

  11. #11
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    SouthBayr wrote:
    Speaking off the cuff, wouldn't most laws pertain to residence rather than home?
    The penal code speaks of "residences". And the penal code will be subject to litigation and hopefully change. I don't understand your point. Heller spoke to possession in the "home". Are you saying your home is not your residence? As for persons with "mobile" vehicle "homes" and no fixed residence, that will be an in issue for the courts.

    But the right is not limited to "homes" asthat was only the specific holding in Heller. The is a right to carry a loaded firearm in public placesfor self defense. The scope and shape of that Right is howevernot yet defined.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    I think the most logical middle ground is that it's a vehicle while you're driving it, and a residence when you're parked.

    If it were up to me (and most others here, I think) EVERY vehicle would be an extension of the sanctuary we call home. It is a place where we have ultimate control - nobody enters without permission, we can abuse/trash it inside and out if we want, we can cuss like a sailer and sing like a hound dog. (Some states already treat your vehicle with the same 4A respect as your home - I believe Florida is one of them, if memory serves.)
    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.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Cato,

    Exactly on point, the Heller decision CLEARLY addressesthe possession of a readily available functioning firearm in the HOME!

    And to CA_LibertarianI agree in some aspects, but believe the legislature may have to revisit the topic regarding motor homes and make provisions for the Heller mandates.

    You are also correct that many statutes on a variety of topics, (in many states & jurisdictions),use the terms "residence or domicile" in their construction and mandates.

    I am only raising the issue that I currently enjoy livingin a motor home, and while doing so, consider the motor home to be my current residence and HOME.

    By law, Ihave several residences and several homes on the east and west coasts, and have no problem admitting that I consider my home in Connecticut to be my DOMICILE or primary residence.

    But none of that changes the fact that a vast number of Americans live in their motor homes full time and consider them as HOMES while doing so.

    Which ever residence I may be in fora period of time I consider my HOME.

    Again, the Heller decision has changed the landscape of firearm laws regardless of when they were written or what intent the legislative body may have had when doing so.

    Under the Heller decision, I consider the inside of my motor home to be my HOME, including all of the areainside of the one main access door including the area where I sit to operate the vehicle.

    Quoting Scalia from Heller:

    The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.





    478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

    SCALIA, J.,

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    THE TYPE OF PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEIR RV AS RESIDENCE/HOME


    Age:
    3% Under 40
    39% 40-59
    58% 60 & Over


    Gender:
    73% Male
    27% Female

    Marital Status:
    91% Married/Partnered
    9% Single

    Work Status of Respondent:
    33% Work Full-Time
    10% Work Part-Time
    57% Retired

    Work Status of Spouse/Partner:
    30% Work Full-Time
    9% Work Part-Time
    52% Retired
    9% N/A

    Annual Household Income:
    49% Less than $75,000

    45% $75,000-150,000
    6% Over $150,000

    Type of RV Owned:
    34% Class A Motorhome
    22% 5th Wheel
    17% Travel Trailer
    15% Class C Motorhome
    12% Truck Camper
    5% Other

    Years Spent RVing or Camping:

    39% Less than 10 years
    25% 11-24 years
    36% Over 25 years

    Time Spent RVing or Camping Annually:
    10% Less than 2 weeks
    42% 2-6 weeks
    19% 6-12 weeks
    29% 12 weeks to full-timing

    Time Spent Traveling Outside of RVing or Camping Annually:
    64% Less than 2 weeks
    27% 2-6 weeks
    5% 6-12 weeks
    4% More than 12 weeks

    Favorite States for Destinations:
    62% Oregon
    54% Washington
    51% Arizona
    37% California
    34% Utah
    25% Nevada
    23% Idaho

    Favorite Activities When Traveling:
    91% Sightseeing
    69% Scenic Byways
    67% Outdoors/Hiking/Walking
    55% Local Events & Festivals
    45% Dining Out
    35% Shopping
    31% Fishing
    26% Bicycling
    15% Motorcyling/ATVing
    14% Golfing
    11% Boating

    What Toys You Own:
    91% Computer/Laptop
    66% Bicycles
    48% Fishing/Hunting Equipment
    32% Boats/Kayaks/Canoes
    29% Golf Clubs
    21% Metal Detectors
    15% Motorcycles
    13% ATVs

    How will the economy affect your RV plans in the future?
    62% Little or no effect

    28% Travel closer to home, but stay longer
    14% Travel more by RV and see the USA
    13% Modernize current RV and keep going
    8% Buy another RV

    Are You Going to Continue Enjoying the RV Lifestyle?
    98.9% Yes

    1.1% No

    Updated 09/09


  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    I believe the book "You and the Police" covers this topic because the author is into RVs and guns. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but I recall him saying that when an RV was in motion or parked, it was a vehicle. If the RV was parked and hooked up to power/sewer lines and had the tires blocked or an awning up, then it was a home. A simple way to think of his description would be, can you start up the RV and drive away immediately? If so, it's likely a vehicle. If not, it's likely a home.

    Naturally, I don't have his citations without the book, but I do know he was writing in a more generic fashion, and not about a specific state's laws. It's entirely possible California doesn't conform to this definition.

    ETA: Actually, it is probably some other book by Boston T. Party...I'm not sure which one.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    Bittoe416,

    Was the book written prior to or after the Heller case?

    What I'm trying to say is that therules have definately changed.

    Individuals who enjoy living in RVs may have many options that were not available to them prior to Heller, including the choice of residence for Permits or Licenses to carry openly or concealed.

    Ed Peruta

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    Whatever book it was, it was definitely written prior to Heller.

Posting Permissions

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