Pulled over with handgun in glove box

[maybejim]

maybejim,
I am assuming you meant that you just obtained a gun from an FFL in California who received that gun from your son in Idaho. If not, you have just admitted to committing a felony:

Not really. I own and live in a place periodically (soon to be the majority of the time) in Idaho. It is legal for a father, son, grandfather or mother, daughter, grandmother, (and a few other family members) to gift guns to the close non-prohibited (to own a firearm) relative. I have registered the G-27 with the State of Kalifornia. And of course I would never bring the gun into the State of Kalifornia before I had registered it there. I filed the papers and sent in the check, which they cashed, and have heard nothing from the State of Kalifornia.

[NavyLT]

Originally Posted by maybejim

Not really. I own and live in a place periodically (soon to be the majority of the time) in Idaho. It is legal for a father, son, grandfather or mother, daughter, grandmother, (and a few other family members) to gift guns to the close non-prohibited (to own a firearm) relative. I have registered the G-27 with the State of Kalifornia. And of course I would never bring the gun into the State of Kalifornia before I had registered it there. I filed the papers and sent in the check, which they cashed, and have heard nothing from the State of Kalifornia.

Well, if you received the gun in Idaho, as an Idaho resident, then it would have been legal for any Idaho resident to gift you the gun, regardless of relationship.

And, yes, there is a Kalifornia exception for gifting of guns from immediate family members not having to be done through an FFL, but that would only apply to an immediate family member who was also a citizen of the great people's republik of Kalifornia, comrade! :-)

[maybejim]

There is a legal problem with owning two residences. Kalifornia says if you are residing in that great socialist state for 10 days or more, you are supposed to get a Kalifornia Drivers license. Idaho says if you are residing in that great Constitution and gun friendly state for more than 60 days you have to get an Idaho Drivers License. I will be residing in Idaho for 2-4 months at a time a couple or 3 times a year, and in Kalifornia for a month or two or three at a time several times a year. What is a guy supposed to do? Change drivers licenses several times a year? I spoke to a representative of the Secretary of State for Idaho and they had nothing to suggest, just if I was going to be in Idaho for over 60 days, I needed to get a Drivers License.

[gdcleanfun]

Originally Posted by maybejim

There is a legal problem with owning two residences. Kalifornia says if you are residing in that great socialist state for 10 days or more, you are supposed to get a Kalifornia Drivers license. Idaho says if you are residing in that great Constitution and gun friendly state for more than 60 days you have to get an Idaho Drivers License. I will be residing in Idaho for 2-4 months at a time a couple or 3 times a year, and in Kalifornia for a month or two or three at a time several times a year. What is a guy supposed to do? Change drivers licenses several times a year? I spoke to a representative of the Secretary of State for Idaho and they had nothing to suggest, just if I was going to be in Idaho for over 60 days, I needed to get a Drivers License.

Don't quote me, but I believe that the IRS says: in whichever state you spend 51% of your time during that year, from January to December, then that state is your primary residential state. That may help you to determine which state would be your primary residential state, and the one to issue you your primary driver's license.

For example, this site said:
Quote:
Treasury Regulations
Treasury Regulations section 1.121-1(b)(2) states that when a taxpayer uses more than one residence, the determination of the principal residence depends upon all the facts and circumstances. If a taxpayer alternates between two homes and uses each one as a residence, the principal residence would generally be the one the taxpayer uses the majority of the time during the year. For example, assume H and W are married taxpayers who own two homes, one in Ohio and the other in Florida, for five years (2000 through 2004), and spend 30 weeks each year in the Ohio home and 22 weeks each year in the Florida home. The home in Ohio typically would be considered the principal residence because it is used for the majority of the year. Selling the Florida home would not result in gain exclusion, while selling the Ohio home would.
End Quote.

In one state you might be considered a resident, therefore, residing and needing a driver's license. In the other state, you may be considered a vacationer, as are snowbirds, rather than a resident. Check with the IRS to be sure.

[maybejim]

In one state you might be considered a resident, therefore, residing and needing a driver's license. In the other state, you may be considered a vacationer, as are snowbirds, rather than a resident. Check with the IRS to be sure.

The way the laws are written, it really doesn't make any difference where your tax home is (which for state tax I believe can be split between states). They say if you are in Kalifornia for 10 days or more (living there I suppose not vacationing which is what I would be doing though that's apparently not the way the law is written) you have to get a license. Basically the same for Idaho except it is 60 days. The IRS doesn't really have a say in Drivers Licenses.

And no, I don't expect to ever be charged with failing to get a license within the time period. It would be difficult for them to know how long I've been in any particular place. But it is an interesting problem that the States apparently aren't willing to consider.

[gdcleanfun]

Originally Posted by maybejim

The way the laws are written, it really doesn't make any difference where your tax home is (which for state tax I believe can be split between states). They say if you are in Kalifornia for 10 days or more (living there I suppose not vacationing which is what I would be doing though that's apparently not the way the law is written) you have to get a license. Basically the same for Idaho except it is 60 days. The IRS doesn't really have a say in Drivers Licenses.

And no, I don't expect to ever be charged with failing to get a license within the time period. It would be difficult for them to know how long I've been in any particular place. But it is an interesting problem that the States apparently aren't willing to consider.

I know that the IRS doesn't have any say, I was just looking for a reference for you. Sounds like the states are being "hard headed." Yet, IDK for sure but isn't it illegal to possess 2 licenses? I've never been stopped but if I was I'd always though that I, too, would say something to that effect, "I'm on an extended vacation." I wonder if that would make an LEO or the state happy.

[FN1910]

There are thousands of people with this same deal that live up North but have Winter homes in Florida. The 10 day deal applies to you becoming a resident which normally means "permanent" resident. If you have homes in both locations you choose one to be your permanent resident, normally the one you spend the most time at. I ran into the same thing several years ago when I was working temporaly in a diferent state.

Key on these factors.
Do you still own the other home
Do you still have the utilities turned on
Does anyone live in the other home
Do you regularly go to the other home
Do you still receive mail at the other address
Where is your car insurance listed as primary address
Where do you vote
Where do you put down as your primary residence for IRS and state taxes (if any)
Where are your car tags listed

All these things are important and if you have homes in CA and ID but move from one to the other you have to choose one to be your permanent address. Just like the "Snowbirds" that move from NJ to FL every winter you don't have to get a FL license if you don't intend to be there for most of the year.

[wuzfuz]

Someone brought up searching a vehicle requiring a search warrant. Not necessarily. There exists in the law what are referred to as exigent circumstances, variations which allow searches to be made when obtaining a search warrant would be counter-productive. One of these is an undeclared weapon in a vehicle. The vehicle being mobile and thus difficult to legally immobilize, is an exigent circumstance. If someone states they have a gun under the seat, then the officer sees the grip of a weapon sticking out from under the driver's thigh, this gives reasonable cause for a search of the vehicle to locate and identify any further weapons or evidence of a crime. An officer does not enjoy searching a vehicle on the roadside, but sometimes it can't be avoided. In this case, the driver and weapons checked out and he was sent on his way, with no more than a small amount of time taken. But what if you make a stop such as I did once, where the grip of a gun was visible between the seat and the console? I drew my weapon and ordered the driver out of the vehicle, handcuffed him and had him sit on the curb while I checked the car. The weapon whose grip was visible came back on NCIC as having been stolen in a burglary two years before. In the glove box, I found a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun cut down to pistol size. I advised the driver he was under arrest on the weapons, called for a wrecker and took him to the jail. He stated he had biught the .38 spl revolver for $175 from a guy at a bar. Since it was a reasonable price, I did not charge him with possession, but let him know the weapon would be returned to the owner. He was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon.

[guadman]

I've had only one experience. Was pulled over in my own town just for taking a sharp left turn near my house faster then the LEO thought I should have. Here in Oregon you don't have to inform officers if you are legally carrying. It was the first time I had been stopped since I got my CCW permit and I honestly just didn't think of informing the officer - wasn't trying to hide anything. After he came back he asked me if I had a concealed weapon - turns out it's right in your driver's license info when he punches it up. I really was embarrassed that I hadn't thought to tell him. He just smiled at me and said "don't worry I just wanted to make sure you weren't driving drunk or anything like that", handed me back my license and let me go. As far as guns in the glove compartment, I keep my .22 S&W 317 in there all the time, just in case something ever happens when I am driving and I didn't think to carry that day or I simply need it. There have been a number of occassions when I just took a quick ride to the local 7-11 etc. and didn't think to put my carry gun in my pocket, always makes me secure to remember there is still a weapon in my glove compartment.

[ecgoin]

I handed her my license, informed her that I had a handgun in the glove box, and asked if she would prefer to retrieve it.

Do we really have to inform LE that we have a weapon, or is it just nice etiquit? I have not seen anything in CO about a need to inform.