PDA

View Full Version : Was it EVER illegal to transport Ammunition in the same container as a firearm?


PutTogether
01-13-2010, 7:53 PM
someone posted this in a thread about gun store employees on the General Gun Discussion board.

I don't understand why so many people think that having ammo in the same place as their gun is illegal? I gotta say, before I started frequenting this site *I* thought it was illegal. Seriously, was there some show in the 80's or 90's that mentioned it (often!)? Is it actually illegal in some states? Anyone have any idea?

The post got buried amongst other replies, but I thought it was a great question. SOOO many people think that it is illegal, it makes you wonder if maybe at one time it WAS illegal, or maybe there was a famous movie or TV show where a character said it was illegal and the idea stuck. Who knows.

So, both djleisure and I (the original poster of the quote above) want to know:


Was it EVER illegal In California or anywhere else in the US.
If not, why do so many people belive this one piece of specific FUD?

Seesm
01-13-2010, 8:07 PM
I think it just was THOUGHT to be...

I have had more than a few LEO and Correctional officers tell me it is STILL illegal... Funny stuff.

The Director
01-13-2010, 8:09 PM
Yeah. in Canada.

hoffmang
01-13-2010, 8:35 PM
No idea where the FUD originated, but it was and is FUD.

-Gene

Cokebottle
01-13-2010, 8:44 PM
No idea where the FUD originated, but it was and is FUD.
Been a lot of FUD... some of it dangerous (and I guess not technically "FUD" because it didn't err on the side of caution... so simply "UD").

When I worked retail in the '80s, I was told (by a Whittier cop), that I could legally carry concealed within the business (no mention of permission from the owner), as soon as I stepped onto the sidewalk, the gun had to be exposed (but still loaded!), and as soon as I got into the car, the mag and gun had to be separated and either, but not both, available to an occupant. No mention of a locked container (and of course, this was before the advent of the rights-free school zone).

Other FUD, based on the above transportation "rule" (though it may be applicable in other states), is that some states who were not then (but are now) shall-issue would automatically issue to anyone who owned a pickup, station wagon, or SUV, because it was not physically possible to separate the gun from the ammo while still having them secure.

FastFinger
01-13-2010, 9:02 PM
The confusion, I believe, is partially by design.

Becoming a new firearm owner is a big step, at least for people who have a sense of responsibility. Besides the inherent power and of the projectile, there is the moral question of self defense coupled with harming another human.

If your goal is to discourage people from becoming gun owners those impediments aren't enough, so you will endeavor to construct yet even more barriers to otherwise legitimate ownership. And if you're a bureaucrat, politician, LEO, or legislator another powerful discouraging force is legal FUD - confusing, intimidating, laws and regulations.

To us common layfolk legal vernacular is confusing and intimidating in and of itself, and compounding that puzzle by constructing non-nonsensical, self-contradicting, useless, and enigmatic laws will guaranty that a lot of potential owners will stop their pursuit of gun ownership just because they can't figure out the legalities. Considering that the potential ramifications for inadvertently misinterpreting firearm legalities can result in significant life altering penalties, that hesitation is understandable.

10 rounds and under - must be non detachable, over 10 rounds - make that detachable; barrel too long, illegal, barrel just a bit shorter, illegal. It makes no sense, and that is the goal.

FUD is good for you. Comrades, eat more FUD!

franklinarmory
01-13-2010, 9:05 PM
Just be careful about 12031(g)

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.

PutTogether
01-13-2010, 9:11 PM
Just be careful about 12031(g)

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.


See, this is what I'm talking about. In a thread about this whole idea being FUD - this gets posted. No disrespect to the person posting it, but where does this sensitivity of ammo being near a gun come from? It's been gone over, and gone over, and gone over again.

JDay
01-13-2010, 9:15 PM
I'm sure there's a few states where it is illegal but not in California.

Cokebottle
01-13-2010, 9:17 PM
See, this is what I'm talking about. In a thread about this whole idea being FUD - this gets posted. No disrespect to the person posting it, but where does this sensitivity of ammo being near a gun come from? It's been gone over, and gone over, and gone over again.
And there have been clarification memos from the AG that sidesaddle rigs mounted to a shotgun are not considered "loaded"... therefore, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; is not violated by having the shells mounted in this manner.

Liberty1
01-13-2010, 9:22 PM
Was it EVER illegal In California or anywhere else in the US.

I believe the following could be the CA sources of the FUD. None of these are implicated unless you are violating that specific prohibative section.


PC 12025 (b) (http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pen/12020-12040.html)

Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is
punishable, as follows:


(6) By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment if
both of the following conditions are met:
(A) Both the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person and the unexpended ammunition capable of
being discharged from that firearm are either in the immediate
possession of the person or readily accessible to that person, or

and

171e. A firearm shall be deemed loaded for the purposes of Sections
171c and 171d whenever both the firearm and unexpended ammunition
capable of being discharged from such firearm are in the immediate
possession of the same person.

and

12001(j) For purposes of Section 12023, a firearm shall be deemed to be
"loaded" whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition
capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate
possession of the same person.

franklinarmory
01-13-2010, 9:23 PM
...where does this sensitivity of ammo being near a gun come from?

A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to,...

I don't want to spread FUD, since I suspect that the courts have weighed in on this issue over time, but depending on how the ammo was transported, a cop might try to argue that the ammo was "attached". Obviously if the ammo is in the magazine, and the magazine is in the gun, your goose is cooked.

Liberty1
01-13-2010, 9:29 PM
An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.

Yes and that "gun in holster attached to belt around your waist touching mag pouch with magazines inside which contain ammo" streeeeetch has always failed.

And with People v Clark that officer just sunk his 4th A. qualified immunity.

Theseus
01-13-2010, 9:45 PM
I thought it came from U.S. CODE Title 18, Part 1, Chap 44 § 926A.

Librarian
01-13-2010, 9:50 PM
I thought it came from U.S. CODE Title 18, Part 1, Chap 44 § 926A.

926 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000926----000-.html)? § 926. Rules and regulations
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
...

bboyin4food
01-13-2010, 10:01 PM
i always was told the same. you gotta have your ammo in the trunk or vice-versa. i think it came along because people misunderstood the penal code section that "loaded" was interpreted as having both a handgun and ammo accessible and within reach.

i always thought it was the people vs Clark case that changed things and defined the term "loaded" as stated in the PC.

franklinarmory
01-13-2010, 10:05 PM
Yes and that "gun in holster attached to belt around your waist touching mag pouch with magazines inside which contain ammo" streeeeetch has always failed.

And with People v Clark that officer just sunk his 4th A. qualified immunity.

Sure 12025 allows for open carry. To arrest for 12031, they have to demonstrate some sort of reasonableness for "attachment" BUT, I sure hope your are not driving past any schools (or anything that the State can finagle into the context of a school.) Either way, you're asking to get a gun screwed to your head as you get yanked out the window by the local PD during a traffic stop. You can bet there will be some quote about the use of force attributed to the necessity of "officer safety."

...and even if the DA doesn't find any merit in taking up the case, you're going to be dealing with the hassle of paying for additional fees to get your (now scratched up) gun back!

nick
01-13-2010, 10:11 PM
Just be careful about 12031(g)

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.

This was clarified in People vs. Clark. It was determined that the firearms is loaded IF it has a round in the chamber. Ammo being merely attached to the firearm doesn't make it loaded. Moreover, having a loaded mag in, but without a round in the chamber, doesn't make it loaded, per the above case law. However, most prefer not to push it that far in this state, due to many LEOs/DAs being militantly ignorant about firearms laws, and having no issues with charging people with non-crimes.

franklinarmory
01-13-2010, 10:27 PM
Okay, I just read parts of People V. Clark. It's interesting how they struck down the "attached in any way" phrase. I apologize. I was ignorant to the ruling.

OTOH, I still wouldn't want to have to try to explain the ruling with a gun to my head. :driving::59:

cbn620
01-14-2010, 2:56 AM
I think it originated like this.

A and B are going to the range and B tries to put his loaded gun in the vehicle.

Person A: "Did you know transporting your gun loaded like that is illegal?"

Person B: "Well I'll be darned, I didn't know that. Thanks."

Person A then explains a litany of California firearms laws, including the penal code section that describes why guns can't be transported loaded in general by the average person.

At a later date B and C are going to the range and C tries to put his gun in the vehicle loaded. B remembers his teachable moment back when he and A were going shooting.

Person B: "That's illegal you know."

Person C: "Wow, I had no idea. I'll just drop the mag and put it with the gun in the box."

Person B is perplexed because he remembers a bunch of crazy legal language A described to him, and can't remember specifics. To be safe, he decides to err on the side of caution and recommend C transport the gun and ammo separately.

Person A knew the law perfectly. But now Person B and C are confused. C now gets into similar situations with Persons D, E, F and so on, and the FUD gets passed along to them in much the same way, if not even more obscured from the truth. This cycle continues until Person Y is telling Person Z something really crazy like, "Handguns have to have their barrels stuffed with Skittles or you can't transport them legally."

It's the classic tale of rumormongering and gossip, but from well intentioned and good natured people. We all have a tendency to forget, and we all have a tendency to err on the side of caution, and most importantly instead of saying we honestly don't know something we are all more inclined to say we do know it for certain. The truth gets added to, subtracted from and divided by, and gets passed from one person to the other as the gospel, where it will then be changed again and passed on with the same air of veracity.

Librarian
01-14-2010, 3:56 AM
This was clarified in People vs. Clark. It was determined that the firearms is loaded IF it has a round in the chamber.

Moreover, having a loaded mag in, but without a round in the chamber, doesn't make it loaded, per the above case law.

Possible, but I don't think so.

The reason I disagree is that the above description is 'unloaded' as defined in the Fish & Game Code; I believe it is reasonably arguable, using the same logic as Clarke, that the Legislature showed it knew how to write the definition that way, but chose not to do so.

putput
01-14-2010, 6:55 AM
I thought this was a gang related add on. I think I read this here on Calguns?

Link (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-23885.html)

Code (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/12021.5.html)

So, you have a gang related add on that gets passed on to non gang members - You and me...

BroncoBob
01-14-2010, 7:06 AM
The confusion, I believe, is partially by design.

Becoming a new firearm owner is a big step, at least for people who have a sense of responsibility. Besides the inherent power and of the projectile, there is the moral question of self defense coupled with harming another human.

If your goal is to discourage people from becoming gun owners those impediments aren't enough, so you will endeavor to construct yet even more barriers to otherwise legitimate ownership. And if you're a bureaucrat, politician, LEO, or legislator another powerful discouraging force is legal FUD - confusing, intimidating, laws and regulations.

To us common layfolk legal vernacular is confusing and intimidating in and of itself, and compounding that puzzle by constructing non-nonsensical, self-contradicting, useless, and enigmatic laws will guaranty that a lot of potential owners will stop their pursuit of gun ownership just because they can't figure out the legalities. Considering that the potential ramifications for inadvertently misinterpreting firearm legalities can result in significant life altering penalties, that hesitation is understandable.

10 rounds and under - must be non detachable, over 10 rounds - make that detachable; barrel too long, illegal, barrel just a bit shorter, illegal. It makes no sense, and that is the goal.

FUD is good for you. Comrades, eat more FUD!

Hey FF, how about coming up with some "FUD" cards that we could pass out each and everytime we hear a load of FUD from morons?

Glock22Fan
01-14-2010, 7:24 AM
I know that it is legal to carry a filled magazine in the same locked case as your empty gun. However, I don't do it and won't unless and until I believe that every cop also knows it. I guess I'm too jaded to want to argue with cops, even though I might be in the right.

My hunter's safety course a couple of years back, the instructor waved a full magazine and said "This is a loaded gun and you will go to jail . . ." I protested politely when no-one else was listening and got the "I know what I'm saying" routine. Next day I gave him a printout of Clark with highlighted sections and he wouldn't read it. There's a lot of this FUD about.

MudCamper
01-14-2010, 7:41 AM
In the pre-internet days, there was no easy way to confirm or deny rumors. Once they got started, they just spread until they were commonly accepted "truth".

bulgron
01-14-2010, 8:04 AM
I always used to put my ammo in a separate, but unlocked, container from my guns when traveling. I also used to always strip my mags. But over time, and due to research that I've done on this subject, I've stopped stripping my mags and I will sometimes put them in the same locked case as my unloaded firearm, if the case has room for them.

When on road trips, I put my non-stripped mags in a pocket of my overnight bag, and I also put the (rather small) locked case containing my unloaded gun in the same overnight bag. It's the most convenient way to go, given that I can't get a CCW in California to, literally, save my life.

It has been a process to figure out what I can and cannot do with my ammo when transporting a firearm. A lot of it has been driven by ignorance caused by everyone's general inability to give me a straight answer on what is legal. And a lot of it has been driven by a general desire to be somewhat conservative in my handling of my firearms.

Theseus
01-14-2010, 8:43 AM
926 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000926----000-.html)?

Uh, yeah. . . Must have referenced it wrong.

I never looked it up myself, it was from the open carry pamphlet. . . Supposed to provide protection from prosecution from State, County, and local gun laws, provided you transport in accordance with that section. . .

I tried looking it up last night before I posted, but I was tired and. . . well. Sorry.

Cokebottle
01-14-2010, 10:22 AM
In the pre-internet days, there was no easy way to confirm or deny rumors. Once they got started, they just spread until they were commonly accepted "truth".
Yup... like another cool tidbit from the 60s and 70s...
"A firearm may not be transported in operable condition"

Dad interpreted that piece of FUD in the most convenient way possible... he carried S/A with the mags out, and removed the bolts from the bolt rifles.
If he had a revolver, I'm sure he would have simply shoved a pencil through a chamber with the wheel open.

dav
01-14-2010, 1:09 PM
I thought it originated with the airlines requiring the ammo be separate from the firearm...

but lo and behold, research gives this from the TSA:

You may carry the ammunition in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as you pack it as described above.

(from this website: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm)

cbn620
01-14-2010, 9:51 PM
I know that it is legal to carry a filled magazine in the same locked case as your empty gun. However, I don't do it and won't unless and until I believe that every cop also knows it. I guess I'm too jaded to want to argue with cops, even though I might be in the right.

My hunter's safety course a couple of years back, the instructor waved a full magazine and said "This is a loaded gun and you will go to jail . . ." I protested politely when no-one else was listening and got the "I know what I'm saying" routine. Next day I gave him a printout of Clark with highlighted sections and he wouldn't read it. There's a lot of this FUD about.

Always makes my blood boil a bit to hear stories like that. Ignorance is one thing, I don't mind people not knowing and passing something along mistakenly. I don't even mind being told "No, I believe you're wrong" when I try to correct someone. What I absolutely can't stand is someone refusing to even look at some evidence, hear the other side of the story, etc. That kind of arrogant ignorance, especially when on the part of so called authority figures, just bugs me to no end and makes me even hesitant to discuss issues of the law with people since you never know when you're going to meet one of "them."

Rob454
01-15-2010, 7:40 AM
I remember that "rule" from when I was a kid. Its nothign more than a word of mouth law that has become fact. People hear it at gun stores and cops say it so then it must me true.

Decoligny
01-15-2010, 9:22 AM
This was clarified in People vs. Clark. It was determined that the firearms is loaded IF it has a round in the chamber. Ammo being merely attached to the firearm doesn't make it loaded. Moreover, having a loaded mag in, but without a round in the chamber, doesn't make it loaded, per the above case law. However, most prefer not to push it that far in this state, due to many LEOs/DAs being militantly ignorant about firearms laws, and having no issues with charging people with non-crimes.

The ruling did not say that. It said the firearm is loaded if it has a round in a position from which it can be fired.

The commonly accepted application of this ruling, in keeping with the language of 12031, is as follows:

If the gun has a round in a position where mechanical manipulation of the gun itself can cause a round to be fired, then it is loaded.

This means, if there is a magazine with at least one round in it, inserted into the gun, then the gun can be mechanically manipulated to fire a round (release safety, rack slide, pull trigger), thus it is loaded.

If you cannot make the gun fire by simple operation of the regular mechanical action of the gun itself, then it is not loaded, i.e. if there are no rounds in the magazine in the gun, or the magazine with rounds isn't in the gun.

Decoligny
01-15-2010, 9:29 AM
926 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000926----000-.html)?

Not "926", "926A"

Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

erik
01-16-2010, 2:56 PM
I thought it originated with the airlines requiring the ammo be separate from the firearm...

but lo and behold, research gives this from the TSA:



(from this website: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm)

Pre-TSA, this was *some* airline's policy. I recall being quite annoyed at having to take checked 2 bags. Those were the days of different [arbitrary] policy for each airline.

racinginthestreets
01-16-2010, 4:45 PM
Just be careful about 12031(g)

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

When I was in law school we covered a case on point in Criminal Law. That case (sorry I can't recall the name and I no longer have access to Westlaw or Lexis) resulted in a conviction of a man who was charged with carrying a pistol in a locked case that contained a loaded magazine in the case but not inserted in the pistol. I believe the above statute was used by the prosecution where it successfully argued the loaded magazine was in such close proximity to the weapon that it satisfied the "attached in any manner" element.

The case was later overturned on the same statute language that resulted in the conviction. The appeals court interpreted the "attached in any manner" language against the prosecution and held that a loaded magazine, while in close proximity to the weapon and while the weapon may be loaded almost immediately, did not meet the criteria set out by the statute that a weapon is "loaded".

Of course, a later case could exist where another similar case tested this statute. Please post if you have heard of such a case. I will post the case I referenced above if I can locate it.

Cokebottle
01-16-2010, 5:10 PM
Just be careful about 12031(g)

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

When I was in law school we covered a case on point in Criminal Law. That case (sorry I can't recall the name and I no longer have access to Westlaw or Lexis) resulted in a conviction of a man who was charged with carrying a pistol in a locked case that contained a loaded magazine in the case but not inserted in the pistol. I believe the above statute was used by the prosecution where it successfully argued the loaded magazine was in such close proximity to the weapon that it satisfied the "attached in any manner" element.

The case was later overturned on the same statute language that resulted in the conviction. The appeals court interpreted the "attached in any manner" language against the prosecution and held that a loaded magazine, while in close proximity to the weapon and while the weapon may be loaded almost immediately, did not meet the criteria set out by the statute that a weapon is "loaded".

Of course, a later case could exist where another similar case tested this statute. Please post if you have heard of such a case. I will post the case I referenced above if I can locate it.
Here ya go... already addressed above in this thread:
This was clarified in People vs. Clark. It was determined that the firearms is loaded IF it has a round in the chamber. Ammo being merely attached to the firearm doesn't make it loaded. Moreover, having a loaded mag in, but without a round in the chamber, doesn't make it loaded, per the above case law. However, most prefer not to push it that far in this state, due to many LEOs/DAs being militantly ignorant about firearms laws, and having no issues with charging people with non-crimes.

GrizzlyGuy
01-16-2010, 5:14 PM
Just be careful about 12031(g)
The case was later overturned on the same statute language that resulted in the conviction. The appeals court interpreted the "attached in any manner" language against the prosecution and held that a loaded magazine, while in close proximity to the weapon and while the weapon may be loaded almost immediately, did not meet the criteria set out by the statute that a weapon is "loaded".

Of course, a later case could exist where another similar case tested this statute. Please post if you have heard of such a case. I will post the case I referenced above if I can locate it.

See discussion in the wiki here: Defining Loaded in California (ttp://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Defining_loaded_in_California)

diginit
01-16-2010, 8:28 PM
This was clarified in People vs. Clark. It was determined that the firearms is loaded IF it has a round in the chamber. Ammo being merely attached to the firearm doesn't make it loaded. Moreover, having a loaded mag in, but without a round in the chamber, doesn't make it loaded, per the above case law. However, most prefer not to push it that far in this state, due to many LEOs/DAs being militantly ignorant about firearms laws, and having no issues with charging people with non-crimes.

I don't understand this. If this is correct then why does the PC still read:

12031(g)

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

I've noticed a note reguarding the Clark case at OC.ORG. But not in the Ca PC.

Librarian
01-16-2010, 9:24 PM
I don't understand this. If this is correct then why does the PC still read:
...
I've noticed a note reguarding the Clark case at OC.ORG. But not in the Ca PC.

Because the case law MUST BE read along with the 'black letter' law; PC as written does not stand alone, and the legislature is not obliged to change the law.

It CAN - the relatively well known People v Overturf caused the Leg. to amend 12026.

But case law amends the PC in fact.

CSACANNONEER
01-16-2010, 9:33 PM
I know that Randy Rossi personally told me that firearms and ammunition needed to be in separte locked cases. This was in 2000 when he was head of DOJ. So, even the "head expert" on Ca. gun laws did not understand the law. Either that or, he thought that he could get away with spreading FUD.

B Strong
01-17-2010, 11:49 AM
SFPD collectively believes that this is the law (ammo seperate from the firearm) and have pulled people in over the years with handguns locked in a case with the ammo.

Happened to a friend of mine back in the 1970's, and a young guy I know that went through the SFPD academy within a couple of years ago was instructed to this effect in training.

SFPD has an unwritten rule that they confiscate every firearm that they encounter - under legal circumstance or not - and even if you get a court order instructing the PD to release your firearm you might be out of luck.

GuyW
01-17-2010, 1:15 PM
SFPD collectively believes that this is the law (ammo seperate from the firearm) and have pulled people in over the years with handguns locked in a case with the ammo.

Happened to a friend of mine back in the 1970's, and a young guy I know that went through the SFPD academy within a couple of years ago was instructed to this effect in training.

SFPD has an unwritten rule that they confiscate every firearm that they encounter - under legal circumstance or not - and even if you get a court order instructing the PD to release your firearm you might be out of luck.

SF needs to be wacked again, and again....until unconcious...

.

Tec9
01-17-2010, 9:18 PM
I've been reading lots of posts but yet still confused. One question can I carry a revolver and a speedloder in the same locked container? What do you guys currently do? Thanks :cool:

Cokebottle
01-17-2010, 9:51 PM
I've been reading lots of posts but yet still confused. One question can I carry a revolver and a speedloder in the same locked container? What do you guys currently do? Thanks :cool:
Yes.

You can carry in any configuration you'd like as long as the cartridges are not in the chambers for revolvers, or the magazine is not inserted into the magwell for semi-auto.


There are specific prohibitions against carrying ammo that matches the gun for gun shows and if you are intent upon (or have) committed a crime.

GrizzlyGuy
01-18-2010, 7:05 AM
I've been reading lots of posts but yet still confused. One question can I carry a revolver and a speedloder in the same locked container? What do you guys currently do? Thanks :cool:

Cokebottle already gave you the correct answer. FYI for future reference, answers to that question and others are in the FAQ:

Can my speed loaders for revolvers have ammunition in them? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#Can_my_speed_loaders_for_revolvers_have_ammuni tion_in_them.3F)

How do I legally transport ammunition? (http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ#How_do_I_legally_transport_ammunition.3F)

OleCuss
01-18-2010, 2:29 PM
It is threads like this one that make CalGuns one of the most helpful fora I think I've ever visited.