Storing Weapon In Vehicle

[Sabougolden]

http://www.hornady.com/store/RAPiD-Safe

 

[GPP]

2 different cases

If youre talking Reyes, that is a storage case, but not at a school.
If youre talking Whitehead, that is not a storage case, it is a possession case ( found after an illegal search in my opinion). Whitehead had several rounds of ammunition visible in his car, and had threatening bumper stickers on the car as well( again,total BS). Whithead was dressed in cammies and such, and had his .380 in the backpack he was wearing when he approached the officers at his car. He was not charged with storage statutes.

Reyes was found NG on the improper carrying charge, but G on the improper storage charge( unlocked glovebox, though locked vehicle)

 

[GPP]

mag needs to be out of weapon but can be in same locked case.

am I wrong?

Storage. Not transport. No different from storing your Glock at home (locked container or trigger lock) when its not in your direct control.
If you are transporting, yes unloaded, locked in a storage case etc.

 

[Len-2A Training]

apparently a court ruled it is always under transport if in a vehicle no matter how long that vehicle is parked for.

Not really what I said above. The court ruled that mere possession of ANY guns/mags/ammo on school property (even if you have a LTC) is illegal. That is not what MGL says, but that is what the judge stated.

I don't agree, but I'm not a judge or lawyer, so put this one in the extremely gray area as of now.

 

[mikelawtown]

http://www.hornady.com/store/RAPiD-Safe

anything with batteries doesn't get permanent in my vehicles. Those batteries don't last in 5 degree weather or cold winters.

 

[Len-2A Training]

If youre talking Reyes, that is a storage case, but not at a school.
If youre talking Whitehead, that is not a storage case, it is a possession case ( found after an illegal search in my opinion). Whitehead had several rounds of ammunition visible in his car, and had threatening bumper stickers on the car as well( again,total BS). Whithead was dressed in cammies and such, and had his .380 in the backpack he was wearing when he approached the officers at his car. He was not charged with storage statutes.

Reyes was found NG on the improper carrying charge, but G on the improper storage charge( unlocked glovebox, though locked vehicle)

Sadly not an illegal search as Whitehead stupidly gave permission to search his backpack and notified the officer that there was a loaded gun in the backpack. Stupid, but voluntary.

Reyes left the handgun loaded in his glovebox. They didn't rule on that directly which leaves it gray at best.

Storage. Not transport. No different from storing your Glock at home (locked container or trigger lock) when its not in your direct control.
If you are transporting, yes unloaded, locked in a storage case etc.

I remember reading here that someone got jacked up on OUI charges where the car was up on blocks or jack stands. I also recall being told by fellow officers that merely having the keys and sleeping it off in the backseat could earn an OUI conviction. Never tested it out or have hard proof, but it seems that different officers will interpret any car as "transportation" because it has wheels even if it is securely parked. So I'd say this is another gray area (we know you wouldn't jack someone up for it, but others might/will).

 

[GPP]

Not really what I said above. The court ruled that mere possession of ANY guns/mags/ammo on school property (even if you have a LTC) is illegal. That is not what MGL says, but that is what the judge stated.

I don't agree, but I'm not a judge or lawyer, so put this one in the extremely gray area as of now.

In Whitehead? Im not tracking that. I know the judge allowed a bogus search, and some bumper stickers and cammie pants to be worthwhile PC for said bogus search, but the ammo storage wasnt an issue.

 

[GPP]

Sadly not an illegal search as Whitehead stupidly gave permission to search his backpack and notified the officer that there was a loaded gun in the backpack. Stupid, but voluntary.

Reyes left the handgun loaded in his glovebox. They didn't rule on that directly which leaves it gray at best.




I remember reading here that someone got jacked up on OUI charges where the car was up on blocks or jack stands. I also recall being told by fellow officers that merely having the keys and sleeping it off in the backseat could earn an OUI conviction. Never tested it out or have hard proof, but it seems that different officers will interpret any car as "transportation" because it has wheels even if it is securely parked. So I'd say this is another gray area (we know you wouldn't jack someone up for it, but others might/will).

Id have to see the case on the OUI on the jackstands, but sleeping one offin the back seat while in possession of the keys is absolutely not operation. Sleeping one off in tbe back seat with the keys in the ignition, radio on, engine running, heater on etc? That would be considered operation. It is of course absolute bullshit tho lol.

You mention loaded with Reyes, irrelevant. Reyes left it in an unlocked glovebox, thats what is relevant.
The gray area is a locked glovebox. The takeaway from Reyes is that a locked car does not constitute a locked container. Same as a locked door to a bedroom.

Whitehead made an excited utterance lol (foolishly of course) but did not give permission to search, hence the motion to supress on the Terry stop language.

 

[Len-2A Training]

In Whitehead? Im not tracking that. I know the judge allowed a bogus search, and some bumper stickers and cammie pants to be worthwhile PC for said bogus search, but the ammo storage wasnt an issue.

http://masscases.com/cases/app/85/85massappct134.html

G. L. c. 269, § 10(j), which prohibits the possession of ammunition or a firearm on school grounds without the permission of school authorities, regardless of a license to possess such ammunition or firearm; and in that the defendant's sudden statement that the backpack contained a loaded weapon, after the defendant had received Miranda warnings confirmed the officer's concern for his own safety and the safety of the college community, and the search was limited to looking for weapons that could pose such a danger. [137-141]

Something about keeping your mouth shut seemed to have been appropriate there.

As a result of the ammunition and the defendant's aggressive posture, the officer patted down the defendant for weapons. He found no weapons or contraband but found the defendant's firearm identification (FID) card in his wallet, indicating that he was allowed to carry ammunition. The officer placed the defendant's backpack on the lid of the cruiser's trunk and then advised the defendant of the Miranda rights. When the officer said he was going to place the defendant in the backseat of the cruiser while he patted down the bag, the defendant spontaneously said, "Wait, there's a loaded gun in the bag." The officer placed the defendant in the backseat, closed the door, and searched the backpack. He found a black Smith & Wesson . 380 semiautomatic handgun loaded with eighteen bullets, an ankle-style holster, and two additional magazines. Officer Donovan seized the gun, magazines, and bullets and placed the defendant under arrest.

Looks like I might have been wrong about him giving permission, but he certainly gave sufficient reason for a search by admitting to carrying a gun. Uncertain how a pat-down for weapons allows the officer to look inside the wallet however?

Legislature, by statute, has codified its concern that students, faculty, and staff in elementary schools, secondary schools, and universities be provided with enhanced protection against guns and gun-related violence. It has increased the burden on a defendant who would seek to avoid prosecution for an ammunition or firearm offense and removed a defense that might otherwise be available in a different setting. Thus, even a person licensed to possess ammunition (or a firearm) cannot possess it on school grounds without the permission of school authorities. See Commonwealth v. Monteiro, 75 Mass. App. Ct. at 285. General Laws c. 269, § 10(j), as appearing in St. 1989, c. 648, provides:

"Whoever, not being a law enforcement officer, and notwithstanding any license obtained by him under the provisions of chapter one hundred and forty, carries on his person a firearm as hereinafter defined, loaded or unloaded or other dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization of the board or officer in charge of such elementary or secondary school, college or university shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. For the purpose of this paragraph, 'firearm' shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle or smoothbore arm from which a shot, bullet or pellet can be discharged by whatever means."

In short, the defendant's claim -- that once the police officer determined that he had an FID card permitting him to possess ammunition, reasonable suspicion to continue the search of his backpack vanished -- fails under the terms of the statute. A license to possess ammunition (or a firearm) is not a defense to prosecution under § 10(j) -- lacking the permission of school authorities, a suspect would still be subject to prosecution. See Commonwealth v. Sayers, 438 Mass. 238 , 240 (2002).

Note above how the judge mis-reads the law intentionally and rules that mere possession on school property is a crime.

 

[jasons]

Reyes left it in an unlocked glovebox, thats what is relevant.

Not exactly....

This does not resolve whether a locked glove compartment might be adequate under the storage statute. We are of the view that it might depending on the particular factual circumstances including the nature of the locking mechanism, whether the motor vehicle was also locked and alarmed, and ultimately whether in the circumstances it was adequate to "deter all but the most persistent from gaining access." This is a question of fact, properly decided by the fact finder at trial.

Basically it wasn't determined if the glove box was locked or not. If it had been determined that it was locked it ~might~ have been adequate for legal storage, but the court basically punted that one. It's interesting to note that they did cite certain other legal storage containers, including a locked glass cabinet. Logically if a locked glass cabinet would be OK then a locked glove box would be too, but logic doesn't always take the day in the MA court system.

Statutory and regulatory references to acceptable containers include safes, [Note 8] weapon boxes, [Note 9] locked cabinets, [Note 10] gun cases, [Note 11] lock boxes, and locked trunks of vehicles. [Note 12] A leading secondary source, Law Enforcement Guide to Firearms Law (20th ed. 2012), published by the Municipal Police Institute, Inc., [Note 13] states that a securely locked container can include a soft gun case secured with a padlock, "as well as an expensive gun safe," and that even "glass front furniture style gun cabinets are acceptable providing that they are capable of being locked." Id. at 93.

Take that for what it's worth....

 

[GPP]

http://masscases.com/cases/app/85/85massappct134.html



Something about keeping your mouth shut seemed to have been appropriate there.



Looks like I might have been wrong about him giving permission, but he certainly gave sufficient reason for a search by admitting to carrying a gun. Uncertain how a pat-down for weapons allows the officer to look inside the wallet however?



Note above how the judge mis-reads the law intentionally and rules that mere possession on school property is a crime.

Possession of the ammo VS the storage of the ammo in the car. Whitehead was not charged with anything in regards to the ammo in the car, the ammo merely added to the bogus PC that was constructed to get to a Terry stop scenario when Whitehead approached his vehicle.
The fact that Whitehead should have shut his mouth is a no brainer lol. Friggin idiot.

 

[GPP]

Not exactly....



Basically it wasn't determined if the glove box was locked or not. If it had been determined that it was locked it ~might~ have been adequate for legal storage, but the court basically punted that one. It's interesting to note that they did cite certain other legal storage containers, including a locked glass cabinet. Logically if a locked glass cabinet would be OK then a locked glove box would be too, but logic doesn't always take the day in the MA court system.



Take that for what it's worth....

Absolutely. The locked glovebox is the gray area, still under consideration if Im not mistaken. I mentioned the relevancy because it was pointed out that Reyes left a loaded handgun in the glovie. Loaded is irrelevant, glovie not so much depending on its locking capabilities, hence the gray area

 

[Mach]

Ok so I apparently was confused.

The issue with the Reyes case was not whether it was loaded or not, but whether a locked glove box constituted a locked container, because a locked car does not. But the law under consideration was the storage law, not the transport law, so leaving a loaded handgun in a locked handgun safe in a parked vehicle is legal.

The issue with the Whitehead case was that he had a handgun in his backpack, which is easily considered on his person on school grounds, even though the judge did not consider the wording on his person, it was effectively on his person. As a result having a firearm, locked in a locked box on school property is legal because it is not on your person. Parked would still be storage, however once you move with the vehicle it is now under transport and the transport law says it must be unloaded unless under your direct control and while on school property it can not be on your person so having a handgun in a locked box on school property it appears it must be within reach so as not to be on my person, but still must be under my direct control.

Do I have this right?

 

[GPP]

Ok so I apparently was confused.

The issue with the Reyes case was not whether it was loaded or not, but whether a locked glove box constituted a locked container, because a locked car does not. But the law under consideration was the storage law, not the transport law, so leaving a loaded handgun in a locked handgun safe in a parked vehicle is legal.

The issue with the Whitehead case was that he had a handgun in his backpack, which is easily considered on his person on school grounds, even though the judge did not consider the wording on his person, it was effectively on his person. As a result having a firearm, locked in a locked box on school property is legal because it is not on your person. Parked would still be storage, however once you move with the vehicle it is now under transport and the transport law says it must be unloaded unless under your direct control and while on school property it can not be on your person so having a handgun in a locked box on school property it appears it must be within reach so as not to be on my person, but still must be under my direct control.

Do I have this right?

I would say right on the money until the last sentence, which just confuses me lol.

 

[jasons]

The issue with the Reyes case was not whether it was loaded or not, but whether a locked glove box constituted a locked container, because a locked car does not.

No, Reyes was whether or not the car itself counted as a locked container. (It doesn't.) They punted on the whole glove box issue. (Basically they said it might or it might not depending on the case, right after they got done saying that the law wasn't vague at all.)

But the law under consideration was the storage law, not the transport law, so leaving a loaded handgun in a locked handgun safe in a parked vehicle is legal.

Yes, they found that the "Carrying in a Vehicle" statute stops being applicable when the person leaves the vehicle. For the third time in this thread:

This court concluded that G. L. c. 140, § 131C (a), the firearm carrying statute, does not apply once a person leaves a motor vehicle and a firearm in it; consequently, at the trial of a criminal complaint charging improper carrying of a firearm arising from the defendant's having left a firearm in his locked motor vehicle, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the defendant's conviction.

I'm not as up on the Whitehead case, but the gist of that one is "Don't carry, store, transport, talk about, look at pictures of, or think of guns or anything gun related in a gun free school zone. Or in other words: "OMG, Don't even."

 

[Mach]

I would say right on the money until the last sentence, which just confuses me lol.

yeah poor choice of word

 

[Len-2A Training]

NOTE: In the Reyes case, Reyes claimed that the glove box was locked and the police report claimed that it was unlocked. For whatever reason, they did not pursue this in the court case, which left the use of a locked glove box as an unsettled matter.

 

[Ae1m]

But there are times when it's, unfortunately, necessary to "store" it in an unoccupied vehicle. Driving around on business, etc, and oops - you have to stop at the a)court ..b)school... c)anywhere else where you're prohibited/metal detector, like City Hall, etc. Sometimes life & timing takes us to "situations" where you can't take the CCW into a certain location for 2 minutes, but want/need it on you for the remainder of the 18 hours you're on the road, etc etc...
Also summertime - beach etc...Heading to the cape for a long day. You want to carry, but definitely not on the beach ...a G26 kinda leaves an extra, odd looking "bump" inside the Speedo, y'know?
("Excuse me - is that an extended mag or are you just happy to see me?")

I don't think you are legal even having it stored/locked in your car on school property, as in your example b) above.

 

[MisterHappy]

No matter what you do, it's wrong.

 

[teaser452]

No matter what you do, it's wrong.

Pretty much. Even when innocent, the process IS the punishment.

 

[kalash]

Two unrelated questions:

1) If your vehicle is unoccupied and storage law is applicable (as opposed to transport or carrying), why wouldn't a locked glovebox count as a locked container? I realize that that's still gray from a case law perspective, but that would make perfect sense to me.

2) Is carrying permitted if you're driving through a college campus? You're not planning on stopping (aside from stop signs, red lights, pedestrian crossings, etc). Or would it depend on whether the street is a public street or one administered by the college?

 

[edhead35]

Two unrelated questions:

1) If your vehicle is unoccupied and storage law is applicable (as opposed to transport or carrying), why wouldn't a locked glovebox count as a locked container? I realize that that's still gray from a case law perspective, but that would make perfect sense to me.

2) Is carrying permitted if you're driving through a college campus? You're not planning on stopping (aside from stop signs, red lights, pedestrian crossings, etc). Or would it depend on whether the street is a public street or one administered by the college?

Glove box is a no go because of a court case that says so. Basically because Massachusetts.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

2) Is carrying permitted if you're driving through a college campus? You're not planning on stopping (aside from stop signs, red lights, pedestrian crossings, etc). Or would it depend on whether the street is a public street or one administered by the college?

According to MRL 269-10j, the prohibition is against carry "on one's person".

Expect campus police to be unaware of this limitation. You MIGHT be able to hire an attorney to have charges dropped, maybe. There is a bit of dicta from the SJC about "possession of ammo being illegal on campus", coming from a case in which the limitation I am discussion was not argued.

The relevant point to argue is that when different terminology is used withing different subsections of the same law, that difference is to be construed as having meaning. There is precedent on this from a non-gun case, however, I don't have it handy.

And, I have seen a search warrant issued based on a police statement that an empty shell casing was evidence that a known LTC holder had a gun in the car in violation of 269-10j. In other words, a warrant was issued for suspicion of legal conduct.

This is also am example where it is important to know the law. Have a gun case in your trunk spotted when changing a tire on campus and you have a defense. Say something stupid like "I locked the gun in the trunk when I parked the car" and you've just admitted to carrying it "on your person".

 

[jasons]

Glove box is a no go because of a court case that says so. Basically because Massachusetts.

Which one? Please enlighten us.

 

[edhead35]

Which one? Please enlighten us.

I was just reading back on the older case thread, and retract my last statement. We still don't really know from the Reyes case. It may have been ok, but didn't seem to be called out. I was confusing car, box, and box that is part of car.

 

[kalash]

I was just reading back on the older case thread, and retract my last statement. We still don't really know from the Reyes case. It may have been ok, but didn't seem to be called out. I was confusing car, box, and box that is part of car.

If I'm not mistaken, glovebox is not at issue in Reyes. So we really have nothing to go on in regards to whether or not a locked glovebox satisfies the storage requirement.

Any case law regarding transport in a locked glovebox?

 

[edhead35]

Right, the thread I found was questioning if this answered the glove box, and it didn't so no answer there. That's why I was confused. I thought it was a glove box but couldn't remember.

 

[hv55maxx]

i store mine in a holster on my hip

 

[jasons]

I was just reading back on the older case thread, and retract my last statement. We still don't really know from the Reyes case. It may have been ok, but didn't seem to be called out. I was confusing car, box, and box that is part of car.

With regard to glove boxes being a "locked container," the court in Reyes basically said "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, it would be up to the (lower) court to decide." That was right after they told us that the law isn't at all vague.

There's strong opinion from people who generally know their stuff that glovebox is a no-go in all cases, but I don't know if that's based on case law, personal opinion, divine communication, or something else. In any case: probably not a super awesome idea to store (or transport) in a glovebox. Buy one of those $20 nanovaults and throw it under your seat. Just my opinion as a regular guy.

i store mine in a holster on my hip

Well technically that would be "carrying in a vehicle" but yeah, that works too.

 

[Dun_right]

So when they say under your direct control when loaded, they want it on your person? no under dash holster or stuck in between the driver seat and middle seat gap? I was looking at the Highway Holster online pictured here:
I dont see any problems because it is in my direct control.