"Locked separate container"

[CMEBoston]

"Locked separate container"

The letter of the federal law states "separate" in black and white. It's hard to imagine the word would be added unless it was meant to mean separate in the way that most reasonable people would interpret the word, i.e. not physically connected. The whole sudivided container vs conmected containers thing, while being used as a joke here, seems like splitting hairs.

For me, it would be easiest to just conform to the letter of the law in a manner that's unambiguous and not really open to some traffic stop LEO's interpretation.

So you mean you don't know? Ok cool thanks....

 

[Goliathan]

Hey, no offense, man. You did say you were looking for critical thought and opinions.

Thanks for the peeps who replied with actual opinions, the rest of you are laughable. The only reason I ask is to peak my curiosity...

I'm here to promote critical thought, not be a jerk. I value all the advise posted, what's your advise?

If you're only interested in hearing from people who "know", I'm sure there are a number of reputable lawyers who you could be referred to.

 

[CMEBoston]

Hey, no offense, man. You did say you were looking for critical thought and opinions.







If you're only interested in hearing from people who "know", I'm sure there are a number of reputable lawyers who you could be referred to.

Meh sorry dude, the whole lunchables thing got me, thanks for replying.

 

[Jason Flare]

Your Honor, if one pulls the cover from the Lunchable to the extent that it is fully removed, it uncovers both the cheese and the crackers, which (if the operator is coordinated) remain within the single tray (container) they came in. The removal of said cover does not transform two containers into one, but rather uncovers distinct compartments within the original single container. We rest our case.

You rested early. I'm not finished.

 

[Dan229]

Easy to speculate, hard to prove. With the ever growing threat of flash mobs in traffic, or declared emergency etc... retreat may not be an option..... I've ran through all the scenarios in my head, and have come to the conclusion that access to my pistol "could" mean life or death..... So now is the process of finding the best way to achieve that.. While being legal.

Highway flash mobs and declared emergencies...then you should totally put one loaded magazine in the lunchable container.

 

[Goliathan]

You rested early. I'm not finished.

If I declare the arguments at an end I win by default!

 

[MAJoe]

Easy to speculate, hard to prove. With the ever growing threat of flash mobs in traffic, or declared emergency etc... retreat may not be an option..... I've ran through all the scenarios in my head, and have come to the conclusion that access to my pistol "could" mean life or death..... So now is the process of finding the best way to achieve that.. While being legal.

Are you driving to CT or Syria?

If CT... Aren't there no laws on license for possession of ammo so you'd only need to worry about firearms?

 

[CMEBoston]

Are you driving to CT or Syria?

If CT... Aren't there no laws on license for possession of ammo so you'd only need to worry about firearms?

There's laws in place now to buy ammo, dunno if its possession too. I'm just brainstorming here, I really see no point in bringing my gun at all if access is prohibitive to defending oneself... May as well stay in the bug lunchable box at home with all the others

 

[MAJoe]

There's laws in place now to buy ammo, dunno if its possession too. I'm just brainstorming here, I really see no point in bringing my gun at all if access is prohibitive to defending oneself... May as well stay in the bug lunchable box at home with all the others

Nothing on possession as far as I know, just purchase. I don't know what other states you'll be driving through to get there which could make your situation more difficult.

 

[CMEBoston]

Nothing on possession as far as I know, just purchase. I don't know what other states you'll be driving through to get there which could make your situation more difficult.

Just Mass (home state) and RI. But the whole idea just got me thinking. So transportation laws in my home state where I'm licensed to carry are more restrictive than in a state I'm not licensed.... Sadly ironic when it's out in that perspective. Thanks for the best actual advice this thread delivered. Rep points inbound

 

[Reptile]

Each lock must be for each container. Otherwise breaking one lock will open both. You could put on a lock for each zippered container.

I doubt that your bag is considered a lockable container though since all you have to do is break a zipper.

I'd buy 2 ammo cans and 2 locks.

Or if you have a trunk, one ammo can for the gun.

If no trunk 2 containers and 2 locks.

If I recall, a trunk counts as ONE container - right?

 

[noxin]

Each lock must be for each container. Otherwise breaking one lock will open both. You could put on a lock for each zippered container.

I doubt that your bag is considered a lockable container though since all you have to do is break a zipper.

I'd buy 2 ammo cans and 2 locks.

Or if you have a trunk, one ammo can for the gun.

If no trunk 2 containers and 2 locks.

If I recall, a trunk counts as ONE container - right?

Then, according to the wise and legal savy around here, why does a soft case meet the transportation requirements for AWB rifles in Massachusetts? (Hint : It's a "safety" requirement, not a threat deterrent.)

 

[Evadd]

I think the most realistic answer you'll get is that there is no clear answer. You should interpret the law based on your comfort level. I choose not to push it for things like this. Do I think it's right? No, but I prefer not to get jammed up trying so skirt around something very simple. You need to decide if it's worth it to fight the good fight because youd use one lock for guns and ammo, even if in separate containers and some dbag decided to jam you up for it.

You rested early. I'm not finished.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard that...

 

[Reptile]

Then, according to the wise and legal savy around here, why does a soft case meet the transportation requirements for AWB rifles in Massachusetts? (Hint : It's a "safety" requirement, not a threat deterrent.)

I was not aware of that.

Thank you.

In that case, for the OP-

Just have 2 different locks. One for each zipper.

 

[SeanT]

Like much law, a lot is going to depend on who notices and how badly they want to jam you up. Legally, a cop could get an unlicensed person screwed if they just had a casing keychain (ammo component). Realistically, that person would likely be doing something (or things) way worse to get jammed up in the first place and the key chain becomes an add on.

In this case, I think a lot would depend on the officer pulling you over. An anti is going to say that setup doesn't count. A pro-2A won't care unless you're doing something else dickieh and they want to **** you over. In order to avoid the ambiguous outcome, I would personally have two separate containers with 2 locks. This way you're not at the potential mercy of someone else's crappy day.

In terms of getting to them fast, I would go for key over a traditional combo lock and get both locks keyed the same (either by purchasing them that way or have a locksmith fix it. The other easy access, but quick, option would be having locks that have separate rotating numbers with both locks set to the same code, like 0-0-0-6. When using them, just move one digit off to lock it (0-0-0-5). To gain access, you rotate each lock one number and you're good to go.

 

[MAJoe]

Just Mass (home state) and RI. But the whole idea just got me thinking. So transportation laws in my home state where I'm licensed to carry are more restrictive than in a state I'm not licensed.... Sadly ironic when it's out in that perspective. Thanks for the best actual advice this thread delivered. Rep points inbound

Thanks! Traveling from MA directly to CT (with ammo) I'd look at no different than going to NH. We don't put a safe in our cars to get over the border. The tricky piece here is going to be RI. If you were stopped in RI for some reason, I think that's where FOPA is going to kick in and that's where I'd want to read up on the laws (I don't know Jack about RI) and see what the rules are for someone who is unlicensed.

From my extremely limited understanding, if you're legal at your start, end, and everywhere in between (just RI in this case) then FOPA doesn't matter. You'd just need to ensure you transport to match their laws based on your licenses (or lack thereof). FOPA would be for traveling through areas where you aren't legal to stop and need to know the exact rules to get you through to your end destination where you are legal again.

Again, I'm not an expert at all in this. Just trying to think things through. Guys like Len can hopefully chime in and see if I'm on point or not.

 

[GlockJock]

Are you driving to CT or Syria?

Driving through certain parts of Connecticut are quite similar (or worse) than driving through Syria... (Bridgeport, Meriden, and a few others come to mind) .... I'm pretty sure I'd rather walk through the slums of Damascus or Hama than DRIVE thru downtown Bridgeport after 11pm or so.. (or even 11am for that matter)...

Just sayin'

 

[CMEBoston]

Driving through certain parts of Connecticut are quite similar (or worse) than driving through Syria... (Bridgeport, Meriden, and a few others come to mind) .... I'm pretty sure I'd rather walk through the slums of Damascus or Hama than DRIVE thru downtown Bridgeport after 11pm or so.. (or even 11am for that matter)...

Just sayin'

Not to mention, anything can happen anywhere, complacency with your surroundings is literally the most dangerous thing you can do to yourself.... That goes for offshore fishing to walking down the road...