PDA

View Full Version : possible new threat to UOC


Alan Halcon
05-10-2009, 10:40 AM
guys I was working a show this weekend and a sheriff deputy came by our booth. So, i started talking to him about UOC. He said that they have been getting briefed on something new (about 2 weeks old) there seems to be a change in the wording of UOC; something to the effect If gun and ammunition are within your control it is unlawful. (paraphrased). he said this means that the mere act of inserting the magazine in the gun is meant to be within your control... Is there any truth to this.

... Sorry if this is a dupe.

Alan

Joe
05-10-2009, 10:44 AM
It seems a change like that would require a new law. They wouldn't be able to change the wording like that without creating underground regulation.

Fate
05-10-2009, 10:45 AM
FUD.

B Strong
05-10-2009, 10:45 AM
guys I was working a show this weekend and a sheriff deputy came by our booth. So, i started talking to him about UOC. He said that they have been getting briefed on something new (about 2 weeks old) there seems to be a change in the wording of UOC; something to the effect If gun and ammunition are within your control it is unlawful. (paraphrased). he said this means that the mere act of inserting the magazine in the gun is meant to be within your control... Is there any truth to this.

... Sorry if this is a dupe.

Alan

FUD.

Librarian
05-10-2009, 10:53 AM
Certainly there is no recent change in the law regarding what 'loaded' is - see http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Defining_loaded_in_California.

That link has snips from (and links to) LE training materials that are contrary to what you report the deputy said.

DDT
05-10-2009, 10:54 AM
This is FUD.

Clark is the controlling case law and it says that in order to be loaded a firearm must have ammunition “placed into a position from which it can be fired”

The court stated that ammunition in a shell carrier mounted on a shotgun was NOT LOADED so clearly a magazine in a pouch separate from the gun cannot be considered loaded.

It could be argued that even if a full magazine were in the gun but no round in the chamber it might not be legally loaded by the definition in Clark because there is no round "in a position from which it can be fired." I would still highly recommend against this practice because it goes against the plain meaning as we all know it of "loaded."

pullnshoot25
05-10-2009, 11:23 AM
Got a department name?

Untamed1972
05-10-2009, 12:15 PM
guys I was working a show this weekend and a sheriff deputy came by our booth. So, i started talking to him about UOC. He said that they have been getting briefed on something new (about 2 weeks old) there seems to be a change in the wording of UOC; something to the effect If gun and ammunition are within your control it is unlawful. (paraphrased). he said this means that the mere act of inserting the magazine in the gun is meant to be within your control... Is there any truth to this.

... Sorry if this is a dupe.

Alan

I wonder if the deputy was confusing having an unloaded, concealed firearm with ammo in one's posession?

JohnnyG
05-10-2009, 12:27 PM
I can't stand how misinformed a lot of LEO's are on these topics. I guess you can't blame them with the rats nest of laws that our legislature has passed. What a joke.

bohoki
05-10-2009, 12:31 PM
I can't stand how misinformed a lot of LEO's are on these topics. I guess you can't blame them with the rats nest of laws that our legislature has passed. What a joke.


yes but it seems to me if they are not up on the full wording of laws they should err on the side of innocence instead of just hauling everyone in and then pleading "acted in good faith" as you apologize for your ignorance as you let them go after detainment and arrest

762cavalier
05-10-2009, 12:44 PM
I wonder if the deputy was confusing having an unloaded, concealed firearm with ammo in one's posession?
Which is still not illegal.

pullnshoot25
05-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Which is still not illegal.

As long as it is locked.

Come on, throw me a department name, I will send them a nice letter...

Tarmac02
05-10-2009, 12:51 PM
As long as it is locked.

Come on, throw me a department name, I will send them a nice letter...


That really wouldn't do any good either unless the OP has the deputy's name. Which if he doesn't is just heresay... wouldn't be the first time someone posted here "I heard about a new law that might happen..." just to cause a stir. Problem is we get so damned riled up on this board when someone posts out their rear.

DDT
05-10-2009, 12:59 PM
I was working a show this weekend ... deputy came by our booth ... something new ... about 2 weeks ... be a change in the wording ... it is unlawful ... this means that the mere act of ... Is there any truth to this.


Iggy found a new job?

CitaDeL
05-10-2009, 1:18 PM
guys I was working a show this weekend and a sheriff deputy came by our booth. So, i started talking to him about UOC. He said that they have been getting briefed on something new (about 2 weeks old) there seems to be a change in the wording of UOC; something to the effect If gun and ammunition are within your control it is unlawful. (paraphrased). he said this means that the mere act of inserting the magazine in the gun is meant to be within your control... Is there any truth to this.

... Sorry if this is a dupe.

Alan

FUD

There is no wording of UOC, since there is no prohibition on holstered, visible firearms. (Just loaded and concealed ones) And while I am certain there are forces that are working to redefine 12031's version of 'loaded', they face an inescapable issue of attempting to ban a completed weapon. ie: the criminalization of possessing both ammunition and the firearm with which to discharge it.

This is probably more reason to push the issue with Police and Sheriff Departments who are determined to misunderstand the concept of an armed citizenry.

NorCal MedTac
05-10-2009, 1:24 PM
Got a department name?

+10000000000

I can't stand when people tell a story of an event and don't give the name/department of the people involved. If a sheriff is going to make a statement like that. Tell their name. Let them stand by their "professional opinion".

pullnshoot25
05-10-2009, 2:16 PM
That really wouldn't do any good either unless the OP has the deputy's name. Which if he doesn't is just heresay... wouldn't be the first time someone posted here "I heard about a new law that might happen..." just to cause a stir. Problem is we get so damned riled up on this board when someone posts out their rear.

How about if I send them an envelope containing all the applicable UOC law via certified return mail, thus ensuring that the department has been duly notified of the law as it is written and not as they feel it to be? That would solve quite a few problems right there...

BigDogatPlay
05-10-2009, 2:26 PM
And if the county's Board of Supes is considering an ordinance then it might not be as FUDish, unless I am missing something.

Knowing what county this is and what is being done legislatively within that county would be good.

E Pluribus Unum
05-10-2009, 2:28 PM
He said that they have been getting briefed on something new (about 2 weeks old) there seems to be a change in the wording of UOC; something to the effect If gun and ammunition are within your control it is unlawful. (paraphrased). he said this means that the mere act of inserting the magazine in the gun is meant to be within your control... Is there any truth to this.

This is nothing new. MANY officers believe this to be the case because this was the interpretation throughout the 90's. Any officer that attended the academy during this time was TAUGHT that this was the law.

Then in 1996 this all changed with a court decision.

People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99

This interpreted "loaded" as the common definition of loaded. It said that in order for a gun to be considered loaded it must be "placed into a position from which it can fire".

This means... loaded magazine in the mag well, and or bullet in the chamber. Anything else is unloaded. Anyone who says otherwise is flat wrong.

7x57
05-10-2009, 2:34 PM
It is possible that you've interpreted this rumor incorrectly. If it is about a change in the law that is being bandied about in the halls of the legislature, not just an idea about an underground regulation, then we could be in trouble. Changing the definition of "loaded" would not only end UOC except as a fashion statement, it would also end "poor man's CCW" and make it difficult to even travel to the range with ammo.

I think we'll eventually be able to get such a thing struck down, but I'm not sure when we'd be in the right legal position to do it.

Such an actual change in the law was more or less precisely what Gene was worried about with UOC, BTW.

7x57

gunsmith
05-10-2009, 3:00 PM
A friend of mine is a SFPD officer and is close to retirement, up until last month he thought open loaded carry was perfectly legal.
He thought I was blowing smoke when I told him it wasn't.
Some cops are way, way not in touch with what current laws are.
BTW, this guy never ever carry's off duty either!
I can't talk politics with him because he is super duper liberal as well...sigh...

Kid Stanislaus
05-10-2009, 7:29 PM
As long as it is locked.


What? If you have ammo in your possession it has to be "locked"? Please clarify.

TheBundo
05-10-2009, 7:36 PM
What? If you have ammo in your possession it has to be "locked"? Please clarify.

He meant if the gun is concealed, IT must be locked and unloaded

Liberty1
05-10-2009, 8:19 PM
A friend of mine is a SFPD officer and is close to retirement, up until last month he thought open loaded carry was perfectly legal.


Up 'till 10 years ago I also thought loaded open carry was the law of the land. I actually thought the 2nd A protected that nation wide (didn't know that the circuit courts had written it out of existence). Once I decided to buy a pistol for the first time I was greeted by the stark reality that I couldn't cash and carry and someone wanted to do a back ground check on ME (a law abiding citizen who had never had a run with the police ever)!

Slowly I learned what the truth was...and chose a side in this fight :D

Alan Halcon
05-10-2009, 8:26 PM
He was from L.A. County. And he was specific in the use of the words "within your control", not whether the mag was in your pocket or open on your belt. He said the act of inserting it in the gun means its "within your control". Holding the gun or mag in your hand is "within your control."

I'm not sure the guys rank, but he did say he is briefing his deputies on this and if I recall he's in woodland hills.

bodger
05-10-2009, 8:35 PM
He was from L.A. County. And he was specific in the use of the words "within your control", not whether the mag was in your pocket or open on your belt. He said the act of inserting it in the gun means its "within your control". Holding the gun or mag in your hand is "within your control."

I'm not sure the guys rank, but he did say he is briefing his deputies on this and if I recall he's in woodland hills.

I think Woodland Hills would be LAPD country, yes?

I sometimes think I would like to UOC at night when I walk my dogs. But this type of thing is why I don't. West Hollywood Sheriff's would most likely be the LEOs I would encounter.
Somehow, I have the feeling that I would be approached as a felony stop, lose my gun, get thrown in the can for at least a few hours, and be tracking my dogs down in the shelter system as a result. Legal or not.

And hiring a lawyer to get Baca to cough up my gun.

KylaGWolf
05-10-2009, 8:55 PM
He was from L.A. County. And he was specific in the use of the words "within your control", not whether the mag was in your pocket or open on your belt. He said the act of inserting it in the gun means its "within your control". Holding the gun or mag in your hand is "within your control."

I'm not sure the guys rank, but he did say he is briefing his deputies on this and if I recall he's in woodland hills.

well he is right that IF you insert into the gun its illegal unless you have a permit to CCW. But if the ammo is in a mag and not attached to the gun it is perfectly legal.

Theseus
05-10-2009, 9:03 PM
Please. . . everyone knows that I am the new threat to OC!

Pull over A** hole! Get on the ground! What are you doing with a gun?! Don't you know I could have shot you and no go home and sleep tonight?! You trying to do my job for me!?

USAFTS
05-10-2009, 10:02 PM
This is FUD.

Clark is the controlling case law and it says that in order to be loaded a firearm must have ammunition “placed into a position from which it can be fired”

The court stated that ammunition in a shell carrier mounted on a shotgun was NOT LOADED so clearly a magazine in a pouch separate from the gun cannot be considered loaded.

It could be argued that even if a full magazine were in the gun but no round in the chamber it might not be legally loaded by the definition in Clark because there is no round "in a position from which it can be fired." I would still highly recommend against this practice because it goes against the plain meaning as we all know it of "loaded."

DDT -

Your comment is exactly what I have been trying to figure out. The memo that was sent to all California departments also repeats the standard. If, in fact, the LEO's are using "in a position from which it can be fired" as the deciding factor as to loaded or unloaded...Then common sense would dictate that a full magazine inserted into the gun with no chambered rounds...would be UNLOADED. That is NOT a position from which the gun can be fired and is just as safe as if the magazine was in a pocket or a mag holster. As usual...the random and arbitrary nature of the application of all "gun control" laws, really only negatively affect the law abiding citizens as the bad-guys don't follow the laws or even care how they are worded.

DDT
05-10-2009, 10:14 PM
DDT -

Your comment is exactly what I have been trying to figure out. The memo that was sent to all California departments also repeats the standard. If, in fact, the LEO's are using "in a position from which it can be fired" as the deciding factor as to loaded or unloaded...Then common sense would dictate that a full magazine inserted into the gun with no chambered rounds...would be UNLOADED. That is NOT a position from which the gun can be fired and is just as safe as if the magazine was in a pocket or a mag holster. As usual...the random and arbitrary nature of the application of all "gun control" laws, really only negatively affect the law abiding citizens as the bad-guys don't follow the laws or even care how they are worded.

I believe that ALL the Right People would probably recommend against this particular challenge right now. IF someone is popped for concealed carry with no round in the chamber a firearms attorney WOULD use Clark as precedence but I'm not sure if the court will buy it. The wording in Clark, if read in context, is explanatory of their use of loaded as "commonly understood." To me, and probably a judge a full magazine inserted into the mag-well of a semi-automatic makes a loaded gun even if a round isn't chambered. The decision in Clark was written in such a manner that this is not explicit but I suspect reading the full decision would lean toward LOADED.

It would be an incredibly interesting case to watch, but I wouldn't want to be the one sitting at the defense table.

Theseus
05-10-2009, 11:08 PM
Unless I am wrong though, a 12031 is only a misdemeanor unless you have prior convictions. . .

And I say this as if even 3 months in jail is acceptable...

USAFTS
05-10-2009, 11:11 PM
I believe that ALL the Right People would probably recommend against this particular challenge right now. IF someone is popped for concealed carry with no round in the chamber a firearms attorney WOULD use Clark as precedence but I'm not sure if the court will buy it. The wording in Clark, if read in context, is explanatory of their use of loaded as "commonly understood." To me, and probably a judge a full magazine inserted into the mag-well of a semi-automatic makes a loaded gun even if a round isn't chambered. The decision in Clark was written in such a manner that this is not explicit but I suspect reading the full decision would lean toward LOADED.

It would be an incredibly interesting case to watch, but I wouldn't want to be the one sitting at the defense table.

DDT-

I agree that the challenge would be quite a battle and definately not one I am ready to wage. As I understand it, the Clark case was an open-carry case that involved a shotgun, but you are probably correct in your opinion that the court that wrote the language for the decision would probably lean toward "Loaded" if it was applied to a handgun.

E Pluribus Unum
05-11-2009, 1:45 AM
Unless I am wrong though, a 12031 is only a misdemeanor unless you have prior convictions. . .

And I say this as if even 3 months in jail is acceptable...

That is correct.... though for a first time offense it is doubtful one would get the full misdemeanor. It would likely be plead down to something else.

Untamed1972
05-11-2009, 9:01 AM
Which is still not illegal.

Actually I believe having an unloaded concealed handgun on you w/o a permit IS illegal....and EXTRA illegal if you have ammo for that gun on your person.

It sounded to me like the deputy in question was incorrectly connecting the "ammo in your possession" from concealed carry and an unloaded, openly carried firearm.

Theseus
05-11-2009, 9:05 AM
Actually I believe having an unloaded concealed handgun on you w/o a permit IS illegal....and EXTRA illegal if you have ammo for that gun on your person.

It sounded to me like the deputy in question was incorrectly connecting the "ammo in your possession" from concealed carry and an unloaded, openly carried firearm.

12025 (concealment) is illegal, but the definition for loaded in 12031 is not changed by 12025. You can conceal the handgun and still have the ammo on your person and you can only be charged with misdemeanor concealment.

Ammo on the person is for gang members and PC171 State Buildings & Governors Mansion.

Untamed1972
05-11-2009, 9:11 AM
12025 (concealment) is illegal, but the definition for loaded in 12031 is not changed by 12025. You can conceal the handgun and still have the ammo on your person and you can only be charged with misdemeanor concealment.

Ammo on the person is for gang members and PC171 State Buildings & Governors Mansion.

Well if unloaded concealed, and loaded concealed for the average joe is a misdeemeanor either way.....guess you might as well go loaded if you're gonna risk it huh?

Theseus
05-11-2009, 9:29 AM
You misunderstand.

They are misdemeanors, but you would then have 2 misdemeanors. 1 for 12025 violation, one for 12031 violation.

Now, get caught again for concealment, loaded, or 626.9 and you will be charged as a felon regardless. IIRC.

Untamed1972
05-11-2009, 9:36 AM
You misunderstand.

They are misdemeanors, but you would then have 2 misdemeanors. 1 for 12025 violation, one for 12031 violation.

Now, get caught again for concealment, loaded, or 626.9 and you will be charged as a felon regardless. IIRC.

gotcha! :thumbsup: I stand corrected. Damn these stupid laws really suck sometimes.