PDA

View Full Version : SU16 traveling question


JaMail
12-30-2009, 5:55 PM
Took my SU16 to the range today, was using my prebans, didint realize that my father in law loaded my two 10 round mags and inserted them back into the stock..

Is it legal that im traveling with two loaded magazines stored in the stock of my SU16 in the back seat of my truck?

It was in the folded configuration, which means its unfireable..


thanks in advance.

IrishPirate
12-30-2009, 6:00 PM
hmmmm......it's not loaded and it's not capable of being fired, but....i can see a cop screwing you because they're attached to the gun. Some will interpret the law to say they can't be touching, and it doesn't matter what you say, what they say at the time is what will go and you may or may not have to pay a fine to get your gun back. Luckily nothing happened, but next time just take them out to be safe since it's not in a locked container.

383green
12-30-2009, 7:52 PM
It's my understanding that there was a court case which determined that a firearm isn't considered loaded unless there are rounds positioned to be fired or fed into the chamber. The name People v. Clark comes to mind, but I may not remember the name correctly. Thus, your SU-16 would not be legally considered to be loaded in CA just because it had loaded magazines stored in the buttstock, even if it was unfolded.

However, I think I've also seen anecdotes here on CGN about officers who were not aware of this court case, and thus incorrectly believed that a firearm would be considered loaded if rounds were attached to it in any way. Personally, I would avoid traveling with rounds stored in this manner unless I was deliberately transporting the rifle for defensive purposes and wanted to keep it legally unloaded but still handy and quickly loadable... and if I was doing so, I'd be prepared to face the additional risk of encountering a law enforcement officer who's not up to speed on the intricate details of unloaded carry here in CA, and who thinks I'm doing something wrong even though I'm not.

pullnshoot25
12-30-2009, 8:21 PM
Completely legal.

Pax tecum.

ldivinag
12-31-2009, 5:18 AM
think of it, like those side saddles thingees you can attach to shotguns...

while the shot shells are attached to the firearm itself, people vs clark says it's not loaded...

Cranium
12-31-2009, 8:40 AM
Similar scenario-
An AR-7 comes with two mags, but only space for one in the stock. The other must be inserted in the action before the action goes into the stock.
With the rifle disassembled, would keeping a loaded mag in the action still be legal? The action and barrel are stored (separately) in the stock.

k1dude
12-31-2009, 11:23 AM
The Mossberg 590 12 ga. has shell a dispenser on the left side of the buttstock. You can hold 2 additional shells in the stock. I think it's legal to have the chamber and magazine empty, with 2 shells in the buttstock.

ldivinag
12-31-2009, 11:35 AM
Similar scenario-
An AR-7 comes with two mags, but only space for one in the stock. The other must be inserted in the action before the action goes into the stock.
With the rifle disassembled, would keeping a loaded mag in the action still be legal? The action and barrel are stored (separately) in the stock.

but now, the mag is IN A POSITION to be loaded to be fired.

doesnt matter if there's a barrel or not.

i would say NO on this one...

Flopper
12-31-2009, 11:46 AM
but now, the mag is IN A POSITION to be loaded to be fired.

In this scenario, the mag may be in the mag well, but can can it still be fired if the barrel, action, and stock are disassembled?

Cranium
12-31-2009, 12:39 PM
Yeah, the chamber is part of the barrel, and the "feed ramp" is on the mag. Charging the loaded action will simply spit the round out the front. So I know it's nowhere near fireable, I'm just wondering about the legality...

Flopper
12-31-2009, 12:44 PM
Yeah, the chamber is part of the barrel, and the "feed ramp" is on the mag. Charging the loaded action will simply spit the round out the front. So I know it's nowhere near fireable, I'm just wondering about the legality...

Yeah, I'm wondering, too.

I'm thinking they could go either way with this one.

hoffmang
12-31-2009, 2:08 PM
If a magazine with full of round is in the magazine well of a rifle, I expect you'd be convicted of "loaded weapon" in Californnia even though that's not the normal definition in most of the rest of the states.

That said and to reiterate the question above, Magazines with rounds in them in the buttstock of an SU16 that otherwise has no round in the chamber and no rounds in the magazine well is not loaded. The shotgun deemed unloaded in People v. Clark (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf) had shells in a storage compartment in it's stock with no round in the chamber.

-Gene

JaMail
12-31-2009, 7:01 PM
thanks.. if im legal, im legal, and im willing to take my chances.