MachineHead
NES Member
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Nobody knows! Maybe! Maybe not!
There's no definition of "direct control" in the statute, and as far as I know there is no case law for whether in that little door pocket thing counts as "direct control".
So, like so many things in this state, whether you choose to carry in that manner depends on your level of risk tolerance given the uncertainty.
I don't think this question has ever been reliably answered- EG, whether or not a loaded handgun within arms reach or in the center console is direct control or
not.....
I carry a fag bag as they are called,many times I have it right next to me in the car.I consider it under my direct control.
I think the photo shows the gun on the door side, not next to the passenger.This!
PLUS, is any unlicensed person sitting in the passenger seat? If so, guess what? No cop is going to buy "direct control" in that case.
Is it "fully" loaded?
I thought I'd post this for the well-versed NES crew. Would this be considered "under direct control?"
View attachment 172459
I put my finger on the grip just in case it's not considered "direct control."
Is that direct control? Maybe- if the cop thinks so. My version of direct control is a holster on my person. That way there's no discussion. Anything else is taking a chance. I don't like maybes....
I agree with this. In addition a panic stop and the gun is WHERE?
"Control" is not defined by the statute, and we have found no case construing the term in this context. Ordinary rules of statutory construction lead to the conclusion that "control" is not synonymous with the term "carried." Otherwise, there would have been no need for the Legislature to have used both terms in the statute. […]
While a gun for purposes of the firearm storage statute need not necessarily be in the actual physical possession of its owner or authorized user in order to be under that individual's "control," it must be readily at hand. The statute is part of an over-all scheme of gun control legislation designed "to prevent the temptation and the ability to use firearms to inflict harm, be it negligently or intentionally, on another or on oneself." […] The firearm storage statute itself "is illustrative of the societal concern with weapons reaching the hands of unauthorized users." […] Understanding that the purpose of the statute is to guard against the use of firearms by unauthorized, incompetent, or irresponsible persons, it becomes clear that a firearm is within the "control" of its owner or authorized user only when that person has it sufficiently nearby to prevent immediately its unauthorized use. […]
Of course, the determination whether a particular firearm is under an individual's control will depend on the facts and circumstances of any given case. Among other things, consideration should be given to the firearm's location, its proximity to its authorized user or owner, and that person's ability to reach immediately the gun. It is clear to us that the Commonwealth satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun was not under the defendant's control in this case. The gun was stored in the pocket of a jacket hanging in an upstairs closet. The defendant was downstairs. The gun was out of its holster, which was lying on the kitchen floor. Children were present, including a young boy who at times was closer to the gun than was the defendant. The jury had more than sufficient evidence upon which to find that the gun was not within the defendant's control.