Gun transport cases and the law

[farmerj]

Here is the REAL question!

Say your father in law gets stopped...by a police officer. The police officer notices your father in law's tool box, and has the exact same one, and knows the exact weight of the tool box coincidentally and is super suspicious.

The officer not having a warrant... pulls out TWO! bathroom scales. One digital. and the other is the old beam and balance kind. He asks your father in law to weight the tool box, your father in law being the type of honest dude he is says SURE!. Which bathroom scale will give the officer enough accuracy to determine whether or not their is a gun in the tool box..... discuss.

For extra credit... the gun in the tool box is a 1911.. what kind of magazine should FJ's father in law use with it?

But should it be loaded with FMJ? HP? EFMJ? 185gr?


The voices....

There's sooo many of them....

So if someone has ADHD, what do you....

Do you like chocolate?

[jgalt]

Re: the casing issue:

1. Don't worry about it.
2. If you're worried about it, get a conforming case - they're cheap.

Re: wife in car w/guns, but w/out permit:

1. Don't let it happen.
2. If you can't ensure it won't happen, have your wife get a permit - they're cheaper than the legal fees / fines / penalties you'll face if she doesn't.
3. Have your wife get a permit either way - she never needs to carry, but she'll always have the option should she want to do so.

[farmerj]

2. If you're worried about it, get a conforming case - they're cheap.

Define a conforming case....

There isn't one per se that a manufacturing company is going to be able to label as "meets or exceeds MN Law".

It needs to totally cover the weapon making it not readily accessible. It needs to be secured in a fashion that it's not simply a folded over blanket. Wrap said blanket with a piece of string and tie it, meets the requirement so long as you cannot see the firearm.

For that matter, a plastic container with a snap tight cover would function as an appropriate container. Not sure a cop would see it that way, but it meets the definition of the law.

There are some that would even contend a zipped guncase with the zipper slipped open an inch back from the stop is "not fully enclosed". Again, that's one of those funky web stories that Georges uncles cousins friends brother sister nephew sons girlfriend dad said.


In short....

Apply a little common sense and stop trolling.

[RobD]

The law is written so that guns just aren't thrown into center consoles, trunks, and truck boxes. LEOs just want them to be covered up.
While preparing for hunting this year, I spoke to a DNR enforcement officer about my requirement to "case up" in the metro area, while on a 4 wheeler. He suggested I get one of these to be safe.

$4.

As for the wife permit, it really should be done. My wife initially agreed to get hers for the logistical reasons... (e.g. when I disarm to run into the post office, when she needs to hold my deep concealment bag for me, etc.) Eventually with enough practice, and reading some Reports From the 4th (where we do A LOT of service work) she is now carrying.

Finally, I will never give a cop permission to search my car. Never.

If the situation were ever to arise, when asked "You don't mind if I search your car do you?", my simple reply would be "Yes Sir, I do. I do not consent to a search of my vehicle."
Then the probable next question... "Why, you got something to hide"
"Not at all, I value my privacy, and expect you do to the same"

Then it is up to the LEO to determine (and prove in court) that he had probable cause to search your vehicle for anything. Note that refusing to consent to a search cannot be used against you to imply guilt.

[SAM]

What the hell is with all the "what if's" ? READ THE STATUTE !!! I've got a 6 yr. old neighbor girl that sounds just like this. WHAT IF?? WHAT IF?? WHAT IF?? WHAT IF?? WHAT IF?? Give it a **** rest already.

[justaguy]

I'm looking at this a little differently I guess.

Yesterday at lunch it was mentioned the use of a machinists toolbox to store guns. What if I was to send that up to the cabin with my father in law and he's stopped?

Normally, they'd need a warrant, but he's the kind of guy to say "oh, those are my son in laws guns in there." Not wanting to be thought to be hiding anything.

So is it possible to have an officer take the grounds that it's not a compliant gun case?

This isn't even an issue.

This has happened to me at least 4 times and I went to court, and because the cop didn't have a search warrant the judge made him pay the fine for me, and all his cop buddy's took me out for donuts at a gas station, and wouldn't you know it some bastard robbed the place, while we were having donuts........but that's another story.

[justaguy]

SHOOT THE CHICKEN!!!!

[jgalt]

2. If you're worried about it, get a conforming case - they're cheap.

Define a conforming case....

There isn't one per se that a manufacturing company is going to be able to label as "meets or exceeds MN Law".

What RobD said above... The 'sock' shown is advertised by a national retailer as being a "Knit Gun Sock", which clearly does meet the specific definition given of "expressly made to contain a firearm". Definition met, problem solved - at least as far as any case brought in court is concerned.

It needs to totally cover the weapon making it not readily accessible. It needs to be secured in a fashion that it's not simply a folded over blanket. Wrap said blanket with a piece of string and tie it, meets the requirement so long as you cannot see the firearm.

For that matter, a plastic container with a snap tight cover would function as an appropriate container. Not sure a cop would see it that way, but it meets the definition of the law.

That would certainly meet what I understand the legislative intent of the law to be, but it would not meet the letter of the law - hence the need for the "Knit Gun Sock", or some similarly cheap 'case' which is publicly advertised as being "expressly made to contain a firearm".

There are some that would even contend a zipped guncase with the zipper slipped open an inch back from the stop is "not fully enclosed". Again, that's one of those funky web stories that Georges uncles cousins friends brother sister nephew sons girlfriend dad said.

And I'd be one of them. The definition clearly states "fully enclosed", and if the zipper is open at all, then it is not "fully enclosed". Were I an officer, DA, or judge, I wouldn't consider that a problem, and would not press the issue - but any of them could if they wanted to, as the law is quite clear.

In short....

Apply a little common sense

We agree completely, I think. And the issue brought up in our posts is exactly why the OP is asking the question. Unfortunately, the OP has a history of 'stirring up the natives', and the question cannot be answered in such a manner so as to satisfy him (apparently). Common sense is the only way to govern one's decisions regarding how to case & transport your firearms. If the OP - or anyone else - wants to ensure that they won't run afoul of the law, the way to do so is to get the wording of the law changed to remove the "expressly made to contain a firearm" portion of the statute. Of course, legislators aren't likely to do so, as ambiguity in the law - any / all law - is what allows politicians to exert control over our lives - though that is an entirely different discussion that I'll leave for another time & place...

and stop trolling.

I'm still unwilling to get on the "troll" bandwagon, but can certainly see why some have jumped on it and are riding it hard. The OP needs to accept the answer I gave above, or risk pushing more folks onto the bandwagon... Common sense must rule the day - and then he must hope that he never pisses a LEO off enough for him / her to get out the statutes to begin to look for ways to see how he has violated the letter of some law or another. A friend of mine (who is coincidentally is a LEO now) used to work at a drag strip inspecting cars before they were allowed on the track. He was told explicitly by his boss during his training, that there were enough rules that he could always find some way to keep a car off the track if he really wanted to - the same goes for the law. Don't give the LEO you are dealing with a reason to search the "rule book" for any 'technical' violations. Really pretty simple... (and I'm sure you (farmerj) get that - I'm hoping the OP will too at some point soon.)

[ttousi]

[phorvick]

1. I think the original question posed was fair; it reflects a great deal of immaturity on gun laws and statutory reading/interpretation, but quite honestly is exactly the type of question you get from time to time in classes, and is very much like a question that might be asked in a law school class. Lawyers, real and amateur, look for loopholes...exceptions to rules....strict or broad interpretation of words and/or phrases. For example, and not to change the topic, what is a "facility" in the definition of "federal facility"; what is the official position of the Justice Dept. on the "lawful purpose" exception? What is the "forest" when discussing National Forest rule (i.e., is it just the trees, or is it also any building contained therein?). My point is that the question, albeit seemingly naive, is not an unusual question.

2. Now...the answer. A case designed expressly to contain a firearm does NOT mean that it was designed by the manufacturer as a gun case. It could be a case that you yourself have created expressly to transport that firearm. It generally means fully covered/encased, and secured/locked/zipped/tied in a manner to make it not immediately accessible. The OP's problem, if he is not trolling, is that he is hung up on some terminology that is not the core issue. That happens. Happens all the time.

3. Interestingly, the Illinois Supreme Court recently was faced with the same basic issue....i.e., what is a proper case? In the final analysis by the IL Sup. Ct. they ruled that the console between the seats (and by implication, not express ruling, the glove box) was a satisfactory "case". Never in my wildest fantasy did I see that logical ruling coming from Illinois. Yet, North Dakota takes the position that the glove box and console is not a "case". So, the question may not have been as illogical as thought by some here. Naive? Sure. Is it covered in 98.56% of carry classes? Sure. Should the OP take a class and learn? Of course. Should we demean the question? Hmmmm.....hard to say as there is evidence of trollish behavior. Or....just a curious new gun owner.

[jgalt]

:busy:

Yup, I've got nothing better to do this morning, so I figured I'd entertain you for a little while...

Now I shall dress up like a cheerleader and do a little dance for you:








Just try to get that image out of your head...

[hammAR]

Common sense is the only way to govern one's decisions.............

What if that were truly applied....................
then we wouldn't have all of these effen what if scenarios based upon multiple layers of what if's........
what if we really did use common sense.......

[jgalt]

Common sense is the only way to govern one's decisions.............

What if that were truly applied....................
then we wouldn't have all of these effen what if scenarios based upon multiple layers of what if's........
what if we really did use common sense..........

Well for one thing, I wouldn't have had to write it, you wouldn't have commented on my comment, and neither one of us would have been able to add to our post counts... And after all, isn't that what life is really all about?

[hammAR]

Well for one thing, I wouldn't have had to write it, you wouldn't have commented on my comment, and neither one of us would have been able to add to our post counts... And after all, isn't that what life is really all about?

but what if this was true, what would we do all day.......
and what if life was really about post count, would it count if you totaled all my post counts on all of the boards that I am on...
for now I'm just trying to get that image out of my head................what if I can't.......

[jgalt]

Well for one thing, I wouldn't have had to write it, you wouldn't have commented on my comment, and neither one of us would have been able to add to our post counts... And after all, isn't that what life is really all about?

but what if this was true, what would we do all day.......
and what if life was really about post count, would it count if you totaled all my post counts on all of the boards that I am on...
for now I'm just trying to get that image out of my head................what if I can't.......

Well then, obviously, your next move would be to seek help - then wait to see how that pans out. But always remember, the interweb is serious ****, so of course all of your posts from all boards get combined...

I hope I have been helpful this fine morning...