Gun in locked car

[cjwils]

This seems like a simple question, but I am guessing that the correct answer varies from place to place, and maybe even from courtroom to courtroom.

If I leave a gun out of sight in my locked car, and someone breaks in to the car and steals the gun, could I be in trouble for not having the gun properly secured?

 

[lemaymiami]

As noted above... any liability will depend on what state you live in.... As a retired cop I can tell you that one of the easiest ways for a gun to enter the criminal world - is being stolen by anyone breaking into the vehicle... Vehicles aren't particularly secure- even when the firearm is locked in the trunk of the car where some force is needed to enter the trunk... Down here in south Florida I'm betting that if you managed to break into or enter in some other manner - ten vehicles targeted at random - in at least one of them you'd find a firearm under the driver's seat or in the glove box....

 

[CapnMac]

As this is Legal, and OP is in WA, a citation from WA State Law (emphasis in original):

RCWs > Title 9 > Chapter 9.41 > Section 9.41.360

9.41.352 << 9.41.360 >> 9.41.365
RCW 9.41.360
Unsafe storage of a firearm.
(1) A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm:
(a) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and causes personal injury or death with the firearm; or
(b) Is guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree if a prohibited person obtains access and possession of the firearm and:
(i) Causes the firearm to discharge;
(ii) Carries, exhibits, or displays the firearm in a public place in a manner that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons; or
(iii) Uses the firearm in the commission of a crime.
(2)(a) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the first degree is a class C felony punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(b) Community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor punishable according to chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;
(b) In the case of a person who is a prohibited person on the basis of the person's age, access to the firearm is with the lawful permission of the prohibited person's parent or guardian and supervised by an adult, or is in accordance with RCW 9.41.042;
(c) The prohibited person obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a lawful act of self-defense; or
(d) The prohibited person's access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.
(4) If a death or serious injury occurs as a result of an alleged violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the prosecuting attorney may decline to prosecute, even though technically sufficient evidence to prosecute exists, in situations where prosecution would serve no public purpose or would defeat the purpose of the law in question.
(5) For the purposes of this section, "prohibited person" means a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.
(6) Nothing in this section mandates how or where a firearm must be stored.
[ 2019 c 3 § 5 (Initiative Measure No. 1639, approved November 6, 2018).]

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.41.360

 

[crstrode]

By definition, only a prohibited person can break into your car.

 

[rust collector]

This seems like a simple question, but I am guessing that the correct answer varies from place to place, and maybe even from courtroom to courtroom.

If I leave a gun out of sight in my locked car, and someone breaks in to the car and steals the gun, could I be in trouble for not having the gun properly secured?

There is a simple answer to your simple question, and a world of possibilities that can distort the issue.

The answer, which I suspect you know, is yes, you could be in trouble for not having the gun properly secured. The purpose of the Legal section is not to render legal advice, but you are requesting that by your question. The danger is that you will hear what you want to hear and fail to understand the many ways you put yourself at risk. You can choose to assume that risk, but internet advice will serve you poorly.

As noted above, automobiles are not secure, security devices inside may be defeated or removed, and one who steals a gun is unlikely to thereafter operate in a safe manner. Even in jurisdictions that do not specifically dictate or speak to the issue of storage security, there is no safe harbor. The civil law concepts of negligence means that risk can only be mitigated, never eliminated. The statute cited by @CapnMac, perhaps other applicable statutes, and Washington state case law on the topic establish the parameters, but even these are flexed by the vicissitudes of counsel, jurors and judges, all of whom are human.

If others have relevant statutory or case law on the issue from Washington that would bear upon this question, please feel free to post. If you, like most of us, have ideas on how it should be or how you heard it was, please abstain.

 

[RickD427]

The Washington statute cited above, would clearly apply to a firearm left in an unlocked vehicle, but when the vehicle is locked, that vehicle can be easily argued as a "Secure Container." Both the "Rule of Lenity" as well as the prosecutorial burden of proof would make it difficult to prosecute a Washington case where a firearm was stolen from a locked vehicle.

California has a much more stringent statute that would make it possible for a person to be prosecuted if a handgun were stolen from the locked passenger compartment of a car. Here is the pertinent part of California's law (Quoted from Penal Code section 25140):

"Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), a person shall, when leaving a handgun in an unattended vehicle, lock the handgun in the vehicle’s trunk, lock the handgun in a locked container and place the container out of plain view, lock the handgun in a locked container that is permanently affixed to the vehicle’s interior and not in plain view, or lock the handgun in a locked toolbox or utility box."​

 

[Frank Ettin]

...concepts of negligence means that risk can only be mitigated, never eliminated....

Even in the absence of a safe storage law, a gun owner could well face civil liability if he stores a gun, it gets taken and used to hurt someone. Even without any statute on the books a gun owner has a legal duty to store his guns in a non-negligent (properly secured) manner.

A negligent act which results in the injury or death of another can subject the actor to civil liability to compensate the person who was injured: Negligence in law is basically:

A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).

Negligence is generally a question for a jury. If one is sued for damages base on an injury allegedly arising from his negligence the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.

In this case in Montana about gun storage, the language of the appellate court decision gives us some clues as to how a court might look at the question of the standard of care where guns are concerned, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):

...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...

 

[dweis]

You could face criminal and/or civil liability in any jurisdiction in any state. This is what my attorney told me to do if I have to leave my gun in the car. It’s simple. Breakdown the gun and remove a part that will make the hub unable to function. I simply do a basic take down of my semi and remove the barrel. No barrel is no gun. I guess with a revolver the cylinder would do the same.

 

[CapnMac]

By definition, only a prohibited person can break into your car.

Actually, no. Under current federal law, a conviction is required. So a first-time offender is not necessarily a Prohibited person.
Mens rea is not enough to make one Prohibited.
"A Crime of Domestic violence" still requires a charge and/or indictment. Even a TRO (now disputed in 5th Circus) still requires, generally, an interaction with a judge.

 

[Steve in PA]

There is no law in PA whereby the firearm owner is responsible for the theft of said firearm from a locked or unlocked vehicle. However, for years Philthydelphia screwed with people holding a license to carry firearms (LTCF) by illegally revoking their license if they reported the firearm being stolen from a vehicle.

The big issue was that while the firearm owner was trying to comply with certain gun laws such as not taking a firearm into a prohibited place such as a courthouse, post office, etc., they secured the firearm in the vehicle. Now, this was not the biggest reason firearms were left in vehicles, but it proved how illegal the Philthydelphia PD was in their actions.

Maybe I’m a legal gun owner, visiting a friend who does not like guns and does not want them in their residence. So, being the good friend I am, I leave my firearm inside my vehicle. Of course the vehicle should be locked. I come out to leave to find my firearm stolen. I now report the theft and Philthydelphia revokes my gun license.

 

[Rule3]

What is the legal definition of "secured"?

) The firearm was in secure gun storage, or secured with a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm;

 

[MedWheeler]

Depending on your locale, your answer on being in trouble criminally might be more clear than on being in trouble civilly. Just being in compliance with criminal law doesn't mean a civil court won't opine that you "could have done more to insure safety."

 

[Ks5shooter]

Depending on your locale, your answer on being in trouble criminally might be more clear than on being in trouble civilly. Just being in compliance with criminal law doesn't mean a civil court won't opine that you "could have done more to insure safety."

Unfortunately this happens in everything you do every day.You are civilly responsible for anything you do. Its what is ruining this country.Throw a firearm in the mix and its worse.

 

[wayneinFL]

Unfortunately this happens in everything you do every day.You are civilly responsible for anything you do. Its what is ruining this country.Throw a firearm in the mix and its worse.

Another thing that is ruining this country is the lackadaisical attitude toward property crime. You can have thousands of dollars of tools stolen out of your truck, and the cops and the public don't care. In many jurisdictions the police won't even respond to it.

But a thief steals a $200 handgun out of the truck and you can find yourself in more trouble than the thief.