Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: what is a locked container

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    What does california consider to be a locked container? Does it have to have some sort of lock on it or can it be considered locked when using the snap buttons on the case itself

  2. #2
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    A snap is not a lock. A lock is a lock. That can mean a duffel bag with a master lock through the zipper and through a fabric loop which prevents the zipper from being open, or it can mean a briefcase with a dial lock, or it can mean a metal trunk with a keyed lock. It does not mean a snap.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    A snap is not a lock. A lock is a lock. That can mean a duffel bag with a master lock through the zipper and through a fabric loop which prevents the zipper from being open, or it can mean a briefcase with a dial lock, or it can mean a metal trunk with a keyed lock. It does not mean a snap.
    so regaurdless if its in the passsanger compartment then it has to have some sort of lock on it. I hear what your saying. Thanks.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    halo6941 wrote:
    What does california consider to be a locked container? Does it have to have some sort of lock on it or can it be considered locked when using the snap buttons on the case itself
    halo6941,

    Here is a penal code section:



    12026.2.
    (a) Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the following: … (1) through (20) omitted from this document.



    (b) In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a), while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be unloaded, kept in a locked container, as defined in subdivision (d), and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the circumstances.




    (c) This section does not prohibit or limit the otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in accordance with this chapter.




    (d) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a motor vehicle.

    http://www.californiaopencarry.org/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf


    From my questioning of several CA LEOs, the "locked container" term is ambiguous. Most people accept any durable cloth bag with a reasonably strong zipper system whose zipper or zipper handles can be locked together, or the zipper handle can be locked to a tab at the end of the zipper's travel. Some have opined that there is a "finger rule";this rule makes it illegal to carry a concealable weapon in a bag that still gives a "finger" access to the weapon. I have not found case law to prove this belief.

    It is my understanding that this law was devised to keep law-abiding citizens from accessing their gun quickly, which prevents cops from being shot--again, I can't substantiate this belief. However, the liberal mind's thinking process does work that way.

    Liberalism is mental disorder.

    I use a Porter Cable tool bag or a women's cosmetic travel bag. I never use a bag that was sold for guns or that hasgun manufacturer's trademarks on it. Camouflage is a good thing. Sometimes, I use aCraftsmanmetal tool box when the travelingis ruff and tumble.

    markm


  5. #5
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    Try one of these available at Harbor Frieght for about $12.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    halo6941 wrote:
    so regaurdless if its compartment then it has to have some sort of lock on it. I hear what your saying. Thanks.
    Correction:

    If you want/need to CONCEAL the firearm, then it must be in a secure container. And it doesn't matter if it's in the passenger compartment or not. (That is, even if it's in the bed of your pickup or in an unlocked "saddle" compartment of your motorcycle...) Either it has to be exposed, or it must be locked up.
    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.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Ranchero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NORCO, California, USA
    Posts
    119

    Post imported post

    GUN INSIDE.
    FREEDOM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Ranchero wrote:
    GUN INSIDE.
    so the case that taurus sent my gun in wouldnt be consisderd to be a locked case. man sometimes its confusing to me.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    What part of "locked" don't you understand. It's not rocket surgery.

    Can you access the weapon without damaging the lock or container?
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    What part of "locked" don't you understand. It's not rocket surgery.

    Can you access the weapon without damaging the lock or container?
    hey man cool yourself theres no need to be talking smart to me.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, California, USA
    Posts
    486

    Post imported post

    "
    What part of "locked" don't you understand. It's not rocket surgery.

    Can you access the weapon without damaging the lock or container?
    hey man cool yourself theres no need to be talking smart to me."

    Hey Halo6941,

    Gundude's tone notwithstanding, he does have a good point. If the case must be destroyed or the lock destroyed in order to get a "finger" on the weapon, then you should be legal. However you get a lock on your Taurus case does not matter, as long as it meets Gundude's criterion.

    Supposedly, lawmaker's want law-abiding citizens to work hard at getting their weapon out during an attempted shooting of a LEO by saidlaw-abiding citizen. The LEO needs a few seconds to make it a fair fight so that the law-abiding citizen gets what he deserves. (NOTE: I am being absurd to point-out how absurd the logic is in regards to this law--criminals do not worry about being an honest law-abiding citizen--criminals arethe problem)

    Hey Gundude, an apology would be nice.

    markm




  12. #12
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    MarkBofRAdvocate wrote:
    "
    What part of "locked" don't you understand. It's not rocket surgery.

    Can you access the weapon without damaging the lock or container?
    hey man cool yourself theres no need to be talking smart to me."

    Hey Halo6941,

    Gundude's tone notwithstanding, he does have a good point. If the case must be destroyed or the lock destroyed in order to get a "finger" on the weapon, then you should be legal. However you get a lock on your Taurus case does not matter, as long as it meets Gundude's criterion.

    Supposedly, lawmaker's want law-abiding citizens to work hard at getting their weapon out during an attempted shooting of a LEO by saidlaw-abiding citizen. The LEO needs a few seconds to make it a fair fight so that the law-abiding citizen gets what he deserves. (NOTE: I am being absurd to point-out how absurd the logic is in regards to this law--criminals do not worry about being an honest law-abiding citizen--criminals arethe problem)

    Hey Gundude, an apology would be nice.

    markm



    I'm sorry you're sometimes confused about what a locked container is.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    hey gundude I wasnt trying to be a pain. when it comes to certian things I like to get other peoples point of view on the matter. I see your defiant to the end eh.

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Don't mind Gundude. He's normally rather harmless... must need to get laid or somethin.

    Just realize that for those of us who have been here for years have explained the rules about 1000 times. After a while we get grumpy that people expect us to spoon-feed them facts that are readily available.

    I know it's not the best, but the forum does have a search function. Us grumpy old men would be much more friendly/helpful if we saw the newbies putting in the effort to find the answer we gave the other newbie a week ago.
    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.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Don't mind Gundude. He's normally rather harmless... must need to get laid or somethin.

    Just realize that for those of us who have been here for years have explained the rules about 1000 times. After a while we get grumpy that people expect us to spoon-feed them facts that are readily available.

    I know it's not the best, but the forum does have a search function. Us grumpy old men would be much more friendly/helpful if we saw the newbies putting in the effort to find the answer we gave the other newbie a week ago.
    or somethin....
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ontario, California, USA
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    ya I hear ya.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Ranchero wrote:
    GUN INSIDE.
    The case with "GUN INSIDE" give the LEO reasonable suspiscion that there is a gun in the case. This allows the LEO to demand to inspect the gun to ensure that it isn't loaded under PC 12031 (e).



Posting Permissions

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