Storing gun in car while at work? gun law?

[jasons]

So when your driving you follow the transporting law, but when you are parked and not in your car you follow the storage law. Is that correct?

One would think, but people have gotten jammed up under the transportation laws when they weren't actually transporting. Read the Reyes brief linked above for one example.

I suggest reading this: http://www.comm2a.org/images/PDFs/reyes_amicus_final.pdf

I also read alot of people saying it needs to unloaded. Can someone show me where in the storage law it says it has to be unloaded?

There is no such language in the storage laws.

 

[Wendell]

Comm2A files Amicus in Important Safe Storage Case
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/173721-Comm2A-files-Amicus-in-Important-Safe-Storage-Case

 

[That Guy]

I read the amicus and I still don't understand what, if anything, has changed regarding storing a weapon in your car.

Currently when I am carrying and I need to enter, say, a federal building, I leave my weapon unloaded in a locked case inside the shallow rear storage compartment of my SUV. I try to plan ahead to avoid such things because even though everything I have read seems to indicate that this is within the law,I am fully aware that if the locked case walks off or the entire vehicle is stolen I man not be charged, but this will definitely become a suitability issue the next time I re-apply or maybe sooner. I don't think the CoP in my city would do that, but then again, I don't know and for that matter, five years from now when I re-apply it's unlikely to be the same chief.

 

[jasons]

I read the amicus and I still don't understand what, if anything, has changed regarding storing a weapon in your car.

Currently when I am carrying and I need to enter, say, a federal building, I leave my weapon unloaded in a locked case inside the shallow rear storage compartment of my SUV.

Reyes was convicted of both illegal storage AND illegal transport because he did exactly what you describe. He was following the letter of the law, much as you and I understand it, and was still convicted by a jury of his peers. What has changed is that we now have some sort of precedent (not a good one) to guide us, whereas before we were all just guessing. (At least I was.)

The appeal will be interesting because it will either confirm that the storage and transport laws that we have basically make it illegal to keep a gun in your car at all OR it will vacate the lower court's ruling and give us a new (and better) precedent to follow.

 

[That Guy]

Not that it should have any impact on the legal outcome, but does anyone know the circumstances surrounding what led to a search, etc? I only ask because I'm trying to wrap my head around why a cop would arrest someone who had the weapon locked up in a vehicle.

 

[jasons]

Not that it should have any impact on the legal outcome, but does anyone know the circumstances surrounding what led to a search, etc? I only ask because I'm trying to wrap my head around why a cop would arrest someone who had the weapon locked up in a vehicle.

It's all in the brief.

Basically he went to check his carry gun before going into work (he is / was a corrections officer.) They told him "sorry, all the lockers are full." He went back to his car, took off his gun and holster, put it in the glovebox, locked the glovebox, locked the car, and turned around to go to work. Internal affairs was waiting for him and the rest is history.

 

[drgrant]

I read the amicus and I still don't understand what, if anything, has changed regarding storing a weapon in your car.

The problem is that the extents of things like "direct control" and "storage vs transport" are not well defined in the
law, or in case law for that matter. There has also been this nostrum of "glovebox is always pure kryptonite" etc that has been flowing around for many years (may be bad case law on that, too. ).

The problem is there is a "redundancy of the redundancy department" legal aspect associated with storage vs transportation.

Granted, the existence of either set of laws is completely absurd, but if we are going to have to live under that crap, they should be presented in such a way that a human can actually understand the limits.

-Mike

 

[jasons]

Actually it's one of the other briefs: http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/?brief=SJC-11270_01_Appellant_Reyes_Brief.pdf that includes the statement of facts describing how Reyes got ****ed. Do not read if you have high blood pressure or you might stroke out.

 

[That Guy]

So they decided to search his car based soley on his attempt to check his gun or was he under investigation already for something else? It doesn't matter from a legal standpoint - I'm just curious. Sounds like they hada serious ax to grind and they were really reaching.

 

[M1911]

Basically he went to check his carry gun before going into work (he is / was a corrections officer.) They told him "sorry, all the lockers are full." He went back to his car, took off his gun and holster, put it in the glovebox, locked the glovebox, locked the car, and turned around to go to work. Internal affairs was waiting for him and the rest is history.

Sounds like someone in the command hierarchy was planning to jam him up ahead of time.

 

[That Guy]

Exactly what it sounds like to me - I can't fathom IA being called in because someone suspected he was storing a handgun improperly. I wonder what it was they were out to get him for.

Again, I cannot stress enough that legally it makes no difference.

 

[jasons]

Sounds like someone in the command hierarchy was planning to jam him up ahead of time.

Impossible, what with that thin blue line we always hear about.

Seriously though, the brief describes a trial worthy of Salem in 1680. Not much has changed apparently.

 

[MisterHappy]

Impossible, what with that thin blue line we always hear about.

Seriously though, the brief describes a trial worthy of Salem in 1680. Not much has changed apparently.

Not true. Spectral evidence is no longer admissable....but you do need Satan's help to figure out the law.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

We don't know why Reyes was jammed up and don't care, it's not relevant. Maybe he ratted out another officer, maybe he was corrupt somehow, it doesn't matter. The issue is that all too often the state uses malum prohibitum gun laws to jam up people for other things. And this is particularly bad because he didn't actually do anything that is illegal. He complied with 131c and 131l. This kind of behavior on the part of the state needs to be stopped.

 

[gzt]

thats because a glove box is explicitly not considered a locked container, IIRC

Edit: Looks like I am wrong

Glove compartment in my car has a lock. Is it a locked container than ?

EDIT: I think I already have an answer. If the law leaves something for interpretation than one may be in trouble. It is important who is allowed to do interpretation of such law.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Glove compartment in my car has a lock. Is it a locked container than ?

Do not expect those prosecuting to accurately report the locked condition of the glove box.

EDIT: I think I already have an answer. If the law leaves something for interpretation than one may be in trouble. It is important who is allowed to do interpretation of such law.

There is a general legal principle that an ambiguous law must be construed using the interpretation most favorable to the defendant (the "rule of leniency"), however, this is a gun law we are talking about so the courts may be reluctant to apply that principle.

 

[MisterHappy]

Do not expect those prosecuting to accurately report the locked condition of the glove box.


There is a general legal principle that an ambiguous law must be construed using the interpretation most favorable to the defendant (the "rule of leniency"), however, this is a gun law we are talking about so the courts may be reluctant to apply that principle.

This is why I coined the term Massprudence.

Just because you're following the law, does not mean you're not going to get in trouble.

 

[That Guy]

We don't know why Reyes was jammed up and don't care, it's not relevant. Maybe he ratted out another officer, maybe he was corrupt somehow, it doesn't matter. The issue is that all too often the state uses malum prohibitum gun laws to jam up people for other things. And this is particularly bad because he didn't actually do anything that is illegal. He complied with 131c and 131l. This kind of behavior on the part of the state needs to be stopped.

Yes and no. From a legal standpoint it shouldn't [/]make a difference but you and I both know that whether or not this guy is a scumbag may have an impact on the court's decision. It most definitely came into play with this guy being charged, so I'd say there is some relevance.

On another note, I think it's bad for our cause when the gun case we have to support is a dirtbag. The public then lumps us in together like it or not so if this CO was dirty then gunowners ingeneral will be guilty by association. Obviously we have to support the case necause the efeects of not supporting it are even worse - it would just ne better if he was a "good" guy.

 

[Infinite Jester]

I've always wondered if making the transfer from one's person to a trunk box upon parking might be misconstrued as brandishing if the wrong party were to see you. I always try to be careful at work, backing into a spot along the tree line, keeping my eyes open.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I've always wondered if making the transfer from one's person to a trunk box upon parking might be misconstrued as brandishing if the wrong party were to see you. I always try to be careful at work, backing into a spot along the tree line, keeping my eyes open.

There is no offense called "brandishing" in MA. There are other offenses like disturbing the peace and assault, but not "brandishing" per se.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

"Brandishing" as Boudrie pointed out is not a crime defined by statute.

The confusion arises because some other states do indeed have "brandishing" statutes.

As to the other stuff - you can get lost in a crowd of one, or stand out like a turd in a punchbowl. Your choice, and your consequences to deal with.

 

[NetDoc]

Reyes was convicted of both illegal storage AND illegal transport because he did exactly what you describe. He was following the letter of the law, much as you and I understand it, and was still convicted by a jury of his peers. What has changed is that we now have some sort of precedent (not a good one) to guide us, whereas before we were all just guessing. (At least I was.)

The appeal will be interesting because it will either confirm that the storage and transport laws that we have basically make it illegal to keep a gun in your car at all OR it will vacate the lower court's ruling and give us a new (and better) precedent to follow.

IANAL, but I believe that there is more to it than that. I don't believe we are at risk for losing storage in a car, completely. You were responding to someone who kept their unloaded gun in a locked case inside the shallow rear storage compartment of his SUV. The prosecutors claim (albeit indirectly from what I have been able to view) that the glovebox was unlocked, and the defendents claim that a locked car should be sufficient. While it would be nice if the latter were the case, before this case most advice here has been that a locked car isn't sufficient; a locked case or container was required. If everyone agreed that the glovebox was locked, I don't think there would have been a conviction, especially as the jury asked about this very issue. However, the glovebox was apparently opened without a key, reading between the lines. Certainly, there is nothing in the case that suggests that a locked case would be a problem.

The whole carry issue (transportation) seems a mess here, as there is no evidence he moved the car with the gun in the glovebox. However, the glovebox is especially called out in the Federal Interstate Transport laws as not acceptable for "storage" during interstate transport. In addition, there is the whole "wingspan" issue regarding police searches, which would simultaneously suggest that someone could reach the gun, yet it wasn't in their "direct control." For example, the back seat wouldn't work. Again, though, this doesn't make sense in a setting in which there is no evidence that he transported the gun in any way other than what he claimed - in a holster, on his person.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the Internal Affairs officers who questioned him prior to searching his car asked him if he had a cable or trigger lock on the gun. Seems like, if he did, they didn't think it would be a problem. Suggests that it might be useful to keep a cable lock around for the time when you have to store your gun in the glovebox or console.

 

[Infinite Jester]

Thanks for pointing that out. I was informed (or maybe misinformed) when I took the safety class that improper concealment; ie, reaching for a high item at the store, and having my shirt ride up, could possibly be considered brandishing if someone chose to report it. I'm actually quite careful about that, so I choose my clothing wisely.

 

[MisterHappy]

No Trucks:

There's a difference between complyig with a law, and covering your .....2A.

This is why I coined the term Massprudence - exceeding the legal requirements to avoid unfortunate issues.

Concealed means concealed, and fewer freaked out Nons and Antis calling the cops for a "Man with a [holstered, legally carried] gun."

When I'm in "Instructor Mode" I make it very clear that there is no requrement in Mass to keep your firearm concealed....but that damn few think that OC is a good idea, around here.

 

[qman]

Just be sure that your work does not have a weapons policy, and potentially fire you for having a firearm on company property....

 

[Infinite Jester]

No Trucks:

There's a difference between complyig with a law, and covering your .....2A.

This is why I coined the term Massprudence - exceeding the legal requirements to avoid unfortunate issues.










Concealed means concealed, and fewer freaked out Nons and Antis calling the cops for a "Man with a [holstered, legally carried] gun."

When I'm in "Instructor Mode" I make it very clear that there is no requrement in Mass to keep your firearm concealed....but that damn few think that OC is a good idea, around here.

Erring on the side of caution in this state seems to be imperative.

 

[qman]

Yes, very true....

Not just company property. Often anywhere one travels part of their job. I had a client lose his job after he legally used his firearm in self defense while on a service csll (he was a builder and was 0n a job site.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Do not expect those prosecuting to accurately report the locked condition of the glove box.


There is a general legal principle that an ambiguous law must be construed using the interpretation most favorable to the defendant (the "rule of leniency"), however, this is a gun law we are talking about so the courts may be reluctant to apply that principle.

It's actually cal the "rule of lenity" and one of the justices (Botsford, I think) raised the very issue during arguments on Monday.