SCOTUS Ruled that 'Locked in the Glovebox/Trunk' = Carry

[LittleRedToyota]

Fixed it for you. If having it anywhere in the car is "carrying," then anyone in the car is equally "carrying" it.

no, they are not. that is a leap that is simply not leapable. people riding in a car are not in control of it. nor did they put the gun in the car.

So if a prohibited person is in the car, or even just a person with no LTCF, they could, by SCOTUS's reasoning, be convicted of unlicensed car carry--and you could be convicted of supplying the firearm.

no, they are not in control of the vehicle or its contents. thus, they are not carrying anything.

if your friend goes to the grocery store, puts his groceries in his trunk, then picks you up on his way home, who is carrying groceries in the trunk?

he is, and you are not.

[LittleRedToyota]

Let's come back to reality here, LRT.

well, that is reality legally...as far as how it is supposed to work.

will the system exercise intellectual dishonesty and allow abuse like it often does? quite possibly.

[LittleRedToyota]

So that means, if you are following FOPA rules, you could still be arrested for a felony in Maryland and many other states.

no, it does not mean that.

FOPA overrides those laws. as long as you are in compliance with FOPA, you are immune from state laws.

[LittleRedToyota]

in all seriousness guys...

you ****really**** do not want SCOTUS redefining words. you will not like their definition of the word "bear".

"carry" means what it means. it has a definition. that definition provides its meaning. and carrying something in your trunk fits the definition.

it's the law if identity...the most fundamental law of logic.

a = a

carry = carry

it really is that simple.

[ehidle]

no, they are not. that is a leap that is simply not leapable. people riding in a car are not in control of it. nor did they put the gun in the car.

It doesn't really matter who put what in the car. At least as far as State Law is concerned, if there is an item in a vehicle that is accessible to a person in the vehicle, and they are able to, should they so desire, exert control over that item, then they are in legal possession of it.

If you have a handgun in your unlocked glove box and a prohibited person is sitting in your passenger seat, you're both fscked. Just like, if you have an unlocked liquor cabinet at home, your child can be charged with minor possession, and you with providing, any time the State sees so fit to charge you.

Back on topic though, if the SCOTUS ruling says that you are "carrying" something that is locked in your trunk, it's a bad thing. There needs to be a clear legal distinction between "carrying," "possessing," and "transporting." The SCOTUS has just blown that distinction away to the detriment of liberty.

[LittleRedToyota]

It doesn't really matter who put what in the car. At least as far as State Law is concerned, if there is an item in a vehicle that is accessible to a person in the vehicle, and they are able to, should they so desire, exert control over that item, then they are in legal possession of it.

If you have a handgun in your unlocked glove box and a prohibited person is sitting in your passenger seat, you're both fscked. Just like, if you have an unlocked liquor cabinet at home, your child can be charged with minor possession, and you with providing, any time the State sees so fit to charge you.

do you have any case law showing such an application of the law?

Back on topic though, if the SCOTUS ruling says that you are "carrying" something that is locked in your trunk, it's a bad thing.

no, it isn't...because that means they are using the real definition of the word which means there is at least a chance they will use the real definition of the word "bear" (and, perhaps, though extremely unlikely, even the real definition of the word "infringe").

There needs to be a clear legal distinction between "carrying," "possessing," and "transporting."

then the statutes need to define them. further, if you read the opinion, they actually do address the distinctions.

The SCOTUS has just blown that distinction away to the detriment of liberty.

i disagree. they have actually, for a change, upheld rule of law. and that is not detrimental to liberty. quite the opposite. now, they just need to extend their upholding of rule of law to include the BoR...though i won't be holding my breath on that one.

[LittleRedToyota]

They didn't need this decision to do that. In PA, the constructive possession laws already say that anything you can place your hand on, you are in possession of. If there is a kilo of The General's Nose Candy on a park bench and you walk by it, you can be arrested and charged with possession. Same goes for a firearm in my glove box. Anyone who is capable of reaching into the glove box is legally in possession of whatever is in there, including a firearm. So yes, already, if a prohibited person is in your car with your firearm, they are guilty of possession by a prohibited person, and you are guilty of supplying it, even if the prohibited person doesn't even know it is there.

At least, that's my reading of it.

i disagree. i think there has to be intent (as there generally always does).

i'll try to find some relevant case law...if you happen to have any, please post it.

[Adam-12]

no, they are not. that is a leap that is simply not leapable. people riding in a car are not in control of it. nor did they put the gun in the car.

Try that out: lock a loaded gun in the glove box, and then drive around with a felon in the passenger seat. When a cop discovers the gun, tell him the gun is in your possession, not the felon's. Let me know how that works out for you.

f your friend goes to the grocery store, puts his groceries in his trunk, then picks you up on his way home, who is carrying groceries in the trunk?

That depends entirely what a cop feels like that day, and what the DA can convince a jury to believe. If a gun locked in the glove box is "carried," then it's anybody's guess who in the vehicle is doing the "carrying." The vehicle's owner? The driver? The gun's "registered" owner? The person sitting closest to the glove box? For fun, put a felon in the front passenger seat, the car's owner and the gun's owner in the back seat, and a fourth person at the wheel, and try the above experiment a few times.

[MDJschool]

First, Muscarello is from 1997; it's not new, they cited it in Heller, etc.

Second, what they found carry to mean in the statute they are interpreting isn't going to bind what it means in our UFA.

One thing I can't buy in this double-meaning common use of 'carry' is that dictionary definitions are often quite at odds with each other at definitions 1 and 2:

Main Entry: 1bi·week·ly
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)bī-ˈwē-klē\
Function: adjective
Date: 1832
1 : occurring twice a week
2 : occurring every two weeks : fortnightly

Main Entry: con·ceal
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsēl\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English concelen, from Anglo-French conceler, from Latin concelare, from com- + celare to hide — more at hell
Date: 14th century
1 : to prevent disclosure or recognition of <conceal the truth>
2 : to place out of sight <concealed himself behind the door>

Whatever the implication to 6106, an idea just sparked in my mind. 6106, as it relates to vehicular 'carry', could stand to be challenged on constitutionality via a foundation beginning with Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (regarding the right to travel via the 14A P&I clause.)

[ehidle]

i'll try to find some relevant case law...if you happen to have any, please post it.

I'll have to do some digging when I get home, but if you can find it, there was a shitstorm of a thread that talked about constructive possession that cited lots of case law defending and expanding the doctrine. (fwiw: this is the same doctrine that is used to convict minors for possession of alcohol regardless of whether they actually possessed any - just for simply being in a place where alcohol is made available to them)