Lunchbox Carry.

[St.Francisville]

Being without a car at the moment, I carry my pistol in my lunchbox cause I can't stand the feeling of not having something to defend myself with within at least sprinting distance. I was just wondering if this was considered CC or not. Just for the record; I do keep my lunchbox in my buddy's truck. I just want to know if it's considered concealed if not in the truck. Thanks.

 

[herohog]

You bet it is if you aren't on your property! Same for a briefcase.

 

[charlie12]

Well the law says

§95. Illegal carrying of weapons

A. Illegal carrying of weapons is:

(1) The intentional concealment of any firearm, or other instrumentality customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon, on one's person

How that plays out I don't know. I'm sure someone will along to answer it.

 

[herohog]

That lunch-box and briefcase are in your hand is close enough to be considered on your person I will wager. Same if it is in a woman's purse or in my bag (call it a purse and I'll scratch yer eyes out b!t@#!).

 

[charlie12]

You bet it is if you aren't on your property! Same for a briefcase.

Wouldn't matter if he was on his property. He doesn't have a CHP.

 

[herohog]

Wouldn't matter if he was on his property. He doesn't have a CHP.

I haven't found where that is prohibited yet. Can you please cite that for me? Not doubting what you are saying, I just wanted to see the actual statute.

 

[charlie12]

I haven't found where that is prohibited yet. Can you please cite that for me? Not doubting what you are saying, I just wanted to see the actual statute.

I don't know but they talked about it a good bit on this thread.

http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15293&highlight=conceal+carry+home

 

[Nolacopusmc]

It is very simple.

If the firearm is concelaed on your person, it is concealed carry and requires a CHP.
The question or purses, briefcases, lunch boxes, diaper bags, etc. is one that will ultimately be decided in court if you are charged, but general consensus is if it is in your immediate control, IE within reach or in your "wingspan", then it is considered on your person.


If it is inside the lunch box and within the vehicle, you are not falling under the laws of CHP since it is contained entirely within the vehicle. granted, depending on the circumstances, it could still be considered "on your person" in the vehicle and thus TECHNICALLY still needing a CHP, but those circumstances would have to be so specific as to be pretty much statitstically improbable.

In the box in the car= OK
In the box in your hand= breaking the law


In most situations.

 

[Guate_shooter]

It is very simple.

If the firearm is concelaed on your person, it is concealed carry and requires a CHP.
The question or purses, briefcases, lunch boxes, diaper bags, etc. is one that will ultimately be decided in court if you are charged, but general consensus is if it is in your immediate control, IE within reach or in your "wingspan", then it is considered on your person.


If it is inside the lunch box and within the vehicle, you are not falling under the laws of CHP since it is contained entirely within the vehicle. granted, depending on the circumstances, it could still be considered "on your person" in the vehicle and thus TECHNICALLY still needing a CHP, but those circumstances would have to be so specific as to be pretty much statitstically improbable.

In the box in the car= OK
In the box in your hand= breaking the law


In most situations.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^


Not to mention "Weapons In The Workplace", La. R.S. 32.292.1

* Restricted access areas
* Company Policies

It will all depend on what kind of work you do and where you do it at if it makes any sense.

It might be OK for you to park in the front of the office in the grass, but if you worked at a Marine Dock that falls under a Marsec Level of access you might have re consider.

 

[herohog]

I don't know but they talked about it a good bit on this thread.

http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15293&highlight=conceal+carry+home

Thanks! Here is the clincher from that thread:

I just happened to come across a case in unrelated "gun-law" research today that seems to confirm that, yes, you can be arrested for concealed carry on your own property. State v. Snoddy, 389 So.2d 377 (La., 1980).

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Hmmmm.....wonder who has been saying that from the beginning.

 

[Guate_shooter]

Sometimes you have to translate it, I can only help with Spanish and German somebody else has to take over after that.

Brannon you need to translate in Pashtu and Dari.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

Sometimes you have to translate it, I can only help with Spanish and German somebody else has to take over after that.

Brannon you need to translate in Pashtu and Dari.

That I can get done.

While I am a GOD OF EVERYTHING, according to some, there is clear evidence that I would have never made it as a secretary.

I need a Brannontypeanese to Ican'treadenglishanywaynese dictionary for some of these people.

This is another one of those cases where I wish I was wrong, but I am not.

I truly do believe you should be able to do literally anything you want on your property sas long as it does not injure the life or property of another.

 

[herohog]

Hmmmm.....wonder who has been saying that from the beginning.

When yer right, yer right.

 

[Kraut]

I would have sworn that there used to be a provision of LA law that specifically mentioned acceptance of one carrying a weapon concealed into and out of their place of work (such as a store owner going to or coming back from a bank run) but can find no mention in current statute. Anyone here long enough in the tooth to confirm if this used to be in the language but was removed?

 

[honestlou]

I would have sworn that there used to be a provision of LA law that specifically mentioned acceptance of one carrying a weapon concealed into and out of their place of work (such as a store owner going to or coming back from a bank run) but can find no mention in current statute. Anyone here long enough in the tooth to confirm if this used to be in the language but was removed?

It wouldn't make sense now to have an exception for "to and from your vehicle" if it is illegal in your home, work, and vehicle.

I graduated law school in 1985, and before I looked back at 14:95, I would have sworn that the only prohibition against carrying concealed was in public. One of these days I'll find the time to research the history and see if and when it was changed.