I was watching cops the other night as I was having a hard time sleeping and they busted into this guys hotel room that he rented for the night and found a pistol in his pocket. The cop kept saying we can charge him with ccw. I thought it was odd that it would be illegal to conceal carry inside of your house or even a room that you paid for even if it was for just a night, you should be able to do as you wish inside. I find it hard that, that charge would hold up in court but then again I'm not an attorney. What do you guys think?
getting charged with ccw while inside?
- Thread starter mo841
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Always need to know the state to be sure of what laws are in effect, BUT...
No, that doesn't make any sense. Surprise, surprise: a) it's TV; b) it's one street officer's "thinking out loud" before checking on what charges might actually stick.
Now, if they had a reason for performing a search on his room, and they found whatever contraband they were looking for, or just HIM if he was a felon, they could easily charge him for illegal possession of the firearm.
But unlawful concealed carry does not apply in your own home or otherwise not "in public."
No, that doesn't make any sense. Surprise, surprise: a) it's TV; b) it's one street officer's "thinking out loud" before checking on what charges might actually stick.
Now, if they had a reason for performing a search on his room, and they found whatever contraband they were looking for, or just HIM if he was a felon, they could easily charge him for illegal possession of the firearm.
But unlawful concealed carry does not apply in your own home or otherwise not "in public."
Kentucky has great firearm laws but as far as I am able to interpret from researching, it is an offense to have a concealed weapon on/about your person without a CCDW permit. The particular code is KRS 527.020 if anyone would like to look it up. I glanced through it to make sure there had not been any changes and did not see any exception for CCW in your home.
As lax as most of our firearms laws are, I would bet if it is illegal here there are likely several other states where this is also true.
As lax as most of our firearms laws are, I would bet if it is illegal here there are likely several other states where this is also true.
steelerdude99
Member
The officer may be using the same fuzzy logic used for non-driving DUI. (i.e. If you are sitting in a car over the legal limit with keys in the ignition listening to the radio … you get a DUI). If the suspect had a firearm on their person and no luggage, they must have carried it on their person to get it to the room. I am not promoting this train of thought, I'm just introducing a possibility of what was in the mind of the officer. Imagine this train of thought being used at the homes of those who own firearms: They own it and don’t have a permit to carry; maybe they carried it home illegally. Therefore I'll arrest and charge. It may not stick, but ... 
Chuck
Chuck
wheelgunslinger
Member
This is why the legal minds work in the court house and you get an arraignment where you are formally charged. Cops are just the muscle on the street with a general working knowledge of what the DA will let them get away with.
I'm not sure, either, if it would be considered his premises. Renting a room doesn't always make it yours.
I would think the charges could stick, but it's a tough call. If they have enough on him the judge, or even the prosecutor might not bother with it.
I don't think it would be considered the same as carrying in public though.
I would think the charges could stick, but it's a tough call. If they have enough on him the judge, or even the prosecutor might not bother with it.
I don't think it would be considered the same as carrying in public though.
In my state (UT) you may carry concealed in your place of residence without a permit. That includes temporary residence or camp. And only the state legislature may enact laws with regard to firearms. No other political subdivision within may make a law more restrictive than the state law.
UT's cool that way.
UT's cool that way.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I went and read the entire statue, and I agree, that is exactly all that section says on the matter.
I am curious if there are other elucidating passages elsewhere that define the matter more clearly. Or, as is often the case, CASE law (precident) has a somewhat different take on the matter.
Taken to extremes, if you can be charged with carrying an illegal concealed weapon on your own property, then that's a real slippery slope. If you have a gun in your briefcase while walking down the street, that's CCW, of course. If you have a gun in your briefcase, sitting on the floor in your living room...is that CCW?
Only if you pick it up and carry it around? With no clear black-letter text to explain that, where exactly does it end?I'd like to know if there are actual cases that have gone through the KY courts that shed more light on the matter. If someone has been convicted of illegal CCW while on their own property -- well, that would be that. But I'd really be very surprised.
Hotel rooms do take things to another level of complexity. Not every state does recognize the hotel room as exactly the same as your domicile. But it isn't exactly "in public" either.
I remember watching Cops on TV and seeing this episode and wondering the same thing (and in a brief online search managed to find it):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbsbth9cvRk
They are serving a warrant to confiscate the firearms of someone, clearly expecting to run into steroids, and apparently having busted the guy for steroids before based on the guy's comments that they are the same ones taken before.
The attire and looks of the people give the impression it was in the 1980s, and a comment mentions it was 1988. Steroids were misdemeanors and infractions at that time, becoming more serious some years after the baseball scandal I believe.
However possession for sales was probably a felony, and that might be why they were confiscating his firearms, indictment of a felony.
One of the guys in the home is wearing a handgun on his hip in a holster when the warrant is served.
The detective and an officer in the back room have this verbal exchange as part of the conversation:
"Was the one guy..."
"Yeah"
"The one right outside the door?"
"Yeah. He had a pistol on his hip."
"He's going for CCW?"
"No he's..it wasn't..it wasn't concealed. It was in a holster, on his hip."
So both the detective and the officer thought if it had been concealed, even in this private home, it would have been violating some sort of law against concealed carry. But being open carried made it legal. I am not sure what state they are in, and that belief of the officers does not make it law, but is interesting to note.
What police think and what is the law are very different things.
Police charge people with all sorts of things that a DA with more formal legal experience then reviews and who often drops some of them if they don't even potentially match the law.
The term "DA reject" is a term some informally use to refer to this process.
People are arrested for things that violate no law all the time.
Just a year or two entire departments in California were having to re-educate officers on legal open carry of unloaded firearms (now banned) because they were arresting people breaking no laws throughout the state.
And this was a topic widely encountered and part of a political movement. More unique and less frequently encountered scenarios won't have the officers being educated on a large scale, so various arrests and misinterpretations of the law will continue on those issues.
Officers are not lawyers, they have only a minimal education in how the law applies. And that is primarily dealing with locating, securing, and preserving evidence, and conducting investigations.
Lawyers spend years learning about specific areas of law. Officers spend less total time being trained on a much broader range of topics before becoming police officers.
They become more familiar with those laws which they deal with more frequently, but they are far from legal experts. Some take it upon themselves to learn more, but they still are police, and if they had a law degree would be practicing law earning more money.
I know in California that concealed or open carry of a handgun (or other firearm) does not violate the two statutes dealing with concealed handguns nor loaded firearms when done at a private residence, temporary residence (hotel room, campsite), or private business.
Case law clearly has established this, and it even extends to outdoor private property which is not open to the public as defined by state law, which includes fenced in property (but does not include an unfenced front yard in a suburb for example.)
One of the cases that established this was a presumed gang member in Los Angeles, on private property, with a handgun and cocaine concealed on his person, within a fenced in area (with an open fence) of the front yard of a residence.
The officer saw a glimpse of the concealed gun, chased the man who ran into the home, and recovered the firearm and upon searching through pockets discovered the cocaine, and arrested the individual.
The cocaine charge was dismissed as the reason for the search was unlawful, the gun was lawfully possessed on private property, and so the officer seeing it did not give probably cause for the arrest.
Possession of the firearm was entirely legal, loaded and concealed, on enclosed private property.
We are all lucky the court reached that decision, and didn't validate the arrest in order to keep the drug charge valid, seeing the short term intended benefits as is often done instead of applying the law properly.
Otherwise we may have all lost the legal right to have a concealed handgun on private property so the state could give that man the charges he probably deserved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbsbth9cvRk
They are serving a warrant to confiscate the firearms of someone, clearly expecting to run into steroids, and apparently having busted the guy for steroids before based on the guy's comments that they are the same ones taken before.
The attire and looks of the people give the impression it was in the 1980s, and a comment mentions it was 1988. Steroids were misdemeanors and infractions at that time, becoming more serious some years after the baseball scandal I believe.
However possession for sales was probably a felony, and that might be why they were confiscating his firearms, indictment of a felony.
One of the guys in the home is wearing a handgun on his hip in a holster when the warrant is served.
The detective and an officer in the back room have this verbal exchange as part of the conversation:
"Was the one guy..."
"Yeah"
"The one right outside the door?"
"Yeah. He had a pistol on his hip."
"He's going for CCW?"
"No he's..it wasn't..it wasn't concealed. It was in a holster, on his hip."
So both the detective and the officer thought if it had been concealed, even in this private home, it would have been violating some sort of law against concealed carry. But being open carried made it legal. I am not sure what state they are in, and that belief of the officers does not make it law, but is interesting to note.
What police think and what is the law are very different things.
Police charge people with all sorts of things that a DA with more formal legal experience then reviews and who often drops some of them if they don't even potentially match the law.
The term "DA reject" is a term some informally use to refer to this process.
People are arrested for things that violate no law all the time.
Just a year or two entire departments in California were having to re-educate officers on legal open carry of unloaded firearms (now banned) because they were arresting people breaking no laws throughout the state.
And this was a topic widely encountered and part of a political movement. More unique and less frequently encountered scenarios won't have the officers being educated on a large scale, so various arrests and misinterpretations of the law will continue on those issues.
Officers are not lawyers, they have only a minimal education in how the law applies. And that is primarily dealing with locating, securing, and preserving evidence, and conducting investigations.
Lawyers spend years learning about specific areas of law. Officers spend less total time being trained on a much broader range of topics before becoming police officers.
They become more familiar with those laws which they deal with more frequently, but they are far from legal experts. Some take it upon themselves to learn more, but they still are police, and if they had a law degree would be practicing law earning more money.
I know in California that concealed or open carry of a handgun (or other firearm) does not violate the two statutes dealing with concealed handguns nor loaded firearms when done at a private residence, temporary residence (hotel room, campsite), or private business.
Case law clearly has established this, and it even extends to outdoor private property which is not open to the public as defined by state law, which includes fenced in property (but does not include an unfenced front yard in a suburb for example.)
One of the cases that established this was a presumed gang member in Los Angeles, on private property, with a handgun and cocaine concealed on his person, within a fenced in area (with an open fence) of the front yard of a residence.
The officer saw a glimpse of the concealed gun, chased the man who ran into the home, and recovered the firearm and upon searching through pockets discovered the cocaine, and arrested the individual.
The cocaine charge was dismissed as the reason for the search was unlawful, the gun was lawfully possessed on private property, and so the officer seeing it did not give probably cause for the arrest.
Possession of the firearm was entirely legal, loaded and concealed, on enclosed private property.
We are all lucky the court reached that decision, and didn't validate the arrest in order to keep the drug charge valid, seeing the short term intended benefits as is often done instead of applying the law properly.
Otherwise we may have all lost the legal right to have a concealed handgun on private property so the state could give that man the charges he probably deserved.
Last edited:
As far as I'm aware that is all that refers to CCW in KRS. I have heard people mention some obscure 1930s case law brought up in CCDW classes and online but have not seen it myself.I went and read the entire statue, and I agree, that is exactly all that section says on the matter.
I am curious if there are other elucidating passages elsewhere that define the matter more clearly. Or, as is often the case, CASE law (precident) has a somewhat different take on the matter.
Taken to extremes, if you can be charged with carrying an illegal concealed weapon on your own property, then that's a real slippery slope. If you have a gun in your briefcase while walking down the street, that's CCW, of course. If you have a gun in your briefcase, sitting on the floor in your living room...is that CCW?
I'd like to know if there are actual cases that have gone through the KY courts that shed more light on the matter. If someone has been convicted of illegal CCW while on their own property -- well, that would be that. But I'd really be very surprised.
I agree, I would be very surprised to see a conviction or even someone charged with illegal CCW in their own home. Generally law enforcement is fairly lax in regards to firearms in general. Even if a LE officer discovered an illegal CCW on your person in your home (whatever odd circumstances led to that) I believe the outcome would likely be a warning (depending on the situation of course), if the officer was even aware of the technicalities. Just another reason to get a CCDW license.
The Lone Haranguer
Member
What state? I can totally see this happening in NY, but even in CA, a hotel room is the same as your home, no permit to keep a defensive handgun in the room required.
mgkdrgn
Member
they can "charge him" with being a ham sandwich....doesn't meant it will get any traction.
parkerdude
Member
Slightly off topic, but I just wanted to throw this out there. The short version of this story...
One night, after confronting my neighbor's son for blowing the car horn after 11pm for the umpteenth time.
My wife called 911 because my neighbor's drug dealing son, was threatening to "shoot me and burn our house down". His mother's version had me out in the street with a gun.
I was charged with "flourishing" a weapon, I had a Ryobi flashlight, and couldn't understand why I was getting arrested.
It turns out that he was wanted by the Police and the FBI, and this was the story they told to give him time to get away, which he did.
Keeping this short, I was held for 20 hours, released, and given a summons with a court date and time.
Before my court date, I received a letter from the Prosecutor's office. He offered me a "deal" of 2 years in jail, reduced to 1 year and $2000 fine, reduced to $1000, because this would be my first offense.
I contacted my attorney and discussed the charges. I found out this if I had done these crimes, the maximum legal jail time was 6 months, and the maximum legal fine was like $500.
My lawyer told me that if I had agreed to these charges, even though they exceeded the maximums charged by the court, that "deal" would stand in the eyes of the court, because I would have agreed to the terms.
Do your homework and make sure that you get a lawyer.
BTW, my charges were dismissed, the 2nd time with prejudice, (that means they can't try to indite me again), when the details were revealed, and it only cost me $3000.
Last time I heard we was still at large...
One night, after confronting my neighbor's son for blowing the car horn after 11pm for the umpteenth time.
My wife called 911 because my neighbor's drug dealing son, was threatening to "shoot me and burn our house down". His mother's version had me out in the street with a gun.
I was charged with "flourishing" a weapon, I had a Ryobi flashlight, and couldn't understand why I was getting arrested.
It turns out that he was wanted by the Police and the FBI, and this was the story they told to give him time to get away, which he did.
Keeping this short, I was held for 20 hours, released, and given a summons with a court date and time.
Before my court date, I received a letter from the Prosecutor's office. He offered me a "deal" of 2 years in jail, reduced to 1 year and $2000 fine, reduced to $1000, because this would be my first offense.
I contacted my attorney and discussed the charges. I found out this if I had done these crimes, the maximum legal jail time was 6 months, and the maximum legal fine was like $500.
My lawyer told me that if I had agreed to these charges, even though they exceeded the maximums charged by the court, that "deal" would stand in the eyes of the court, because I would have agreed to the terms.
Do your homework and make sure that you get a lawyer.
BTW, my charges were dismissed, the 2nd time with prejudice, (that means they can't try to indite me again), when the details were revealed, and it only cost me $3000.
Last time I heard we was still at large...
crazy4milsurps
Member
You can throw that in the drawer with the certain sexual positions are illegal in some states file. Also known as the GTFOH file.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Asked ---> Answered
- Status
