PDA

View Full Version : Magazine Containing Ammunition Attached to the Firearm Question


Blood Ocean
02-01-2010, 1:49 PM
My normal travel pistol is a Ruger P89 which I keep locked in a small plastic case that came with my NAA revolver. The gun fits in there exactly and locks with a small padlock. I keep this locked case in an old Crown Royal bag in my trunk with a loaded 10 round magazine which is kept in the magazine slot on my holster (holster has extra mag pouch on top, this is similar but not exact: http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_-1_10001_34279?cm_mmc=froogle-_-400-4-9-_--1-_-38-897-200-02&hvarAID=46KY&mr:trackingCode=CE9014AB-E881-DE11-B712-001422107090&mr:referralID=NA). I only mention this to counter any arguments regarding how it is transported, not relevant to the immediate question at hand. I have previously UOC with this configuration in Fresno without incident.

I have been told countless times by the counter jockeys at the LAX (back in LA now) range that this configuration of magazine containing ammunition attached to holster which contains the otherwise unloaded handgun is considered "loaded" and I should prepare to be arrested for violating 12025. He also tried to push the magazine must not contain ammunition for transport which is absolute FUD. I take the position that my configuration is no different than the side-saddle on a shotgun which has been proven legal. Am I breaking the law when carrying a magazine containing ammunition in the same holster as my otherwise unloaded handgun?

Thanks

ke6guj
02-01-2010, 1:52 PM
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Defining_loaded_in_California

pay extra attention to the People v. Clark section.

AJAX22
02-01-2010, 1:52 PM
No, clear cut case law is in your favor.

(can't remember the name offhand, starts with a c)

Blood Ocean
02-01-2010, 2:50 PM
It seems to indicate pretty clearly that the ammunition has to be readily fireable in order to be deemed "loaded". The point about the Kel-Tec SU16CA being able to keep magazines containing ammunition in the buttstock without being deemed "loaded" seems to apply to my case and I'm comfortable enough with that. Thread Jacking myself, if you utilize the Redi-Mag on your AR style rifle (http://www.botachtactical.com/requ.html) you could have a magazine containing ammunition inserted into the Redi-Mag (but not the magwell) and still have a weapon that doesn't meet the definition of loaded. Would this be correct I'm not asking if I should do it, just if it meets the definition of loaded.

hoffmang
02-01-2010, 2:58 PM
If there is no magazine in the magazine well of a semiautomatic firearm and no round in the chamber, the firearm is not loaded.

-Gene

dantodd
02-01-2010, 5:22 PM
There's even an argument that you could have a magazine in the mag well but nothing in the chamber and still be "unloaded." Exactly how far you can push it is not covered in Clark but THAT far is not a place you want to go.

Lone_Gunman
02-01-2010, 5:39 PM
And quit taking gun law advice from gun store employees. The only people less qualified to give gun law advice are the DOJ/BOF drones.

pitchbaby
02-01-2010, 9:49 PM
My CCW instructor explains CA law to consider loaded in the eye's of a LEO as a bullet touching any part of the gun. Your holster config seems to keep a bullet from touching the gun. That's good enough for me.

hoffmang
02-01-2010, 9:55 PM
My CCW instructor explains CA law to consider loaded in the eye's of a LEO as a bullet touching any part of the gun. Your holster config seems to keep a bullet from touching the gun. That's good enough for me.

Your CCW instructor is spreading FUD and is exactly incorrect on the law. I suggest you take the rest of his instruction with a grain of salt as well then.

-Gene

dantodd
02-01-2010, 9:57 PM
My CCW instructor explains CA law to consider loaded in the eye's of a LEO as a bullet touching any part of the gun. Your holster config seems to keep a bullet from touching the gun. That's good enough for me.

Your instructor is WRONG. Read Clark. The specific issue was a shotgun with a saddle filled with shot shells. They were directly attached to and touching the shotgun's stock. The courts ruled that the weapon WAT NOT LOADED. They defined "loaded" to mean a cartridge is in a position to be fired. (I am paraphrasing, too tired to find the exact quote)

pitchbaby
02-01-2010, 9:59 PM
LOL.... I didn't say he agreed with it... He also said that this definition was a load of crap..... but was clear to point out that many LEO's see it that way.... especially as you get closer to LA and or SF.... Nice to see though Hoff that your on the same page as the rest of us!!! Still, in that narrow view, it would seem to be that Blood Ocean is SAFE!

dantodd
02-01-2010, 10:04 PM
LOL.... I didn't say he agreed with it... He also said that this definition was a load of crap..... but was clear to point out that many LEO's see it that way.... especially as you get closer to LA and or SF.... Nice to see though Hoff that your on the same page as the rest of us!!! Still, in that narrow view, it would seem to be that Blood Ocean is SAFE!

it is irrelevant if he agrees with it or not California law does NOT say that if ammunition is touching the firearm it is loaded. LEOs may or may not see it that way, there are plenty of LEOs who only know that guns are bad and their only experience with guns is in the academy and in the hands of bad guys. Don't listen to your instructor about what constitutes a loaded weapon, don't listen to me, don't listen to Gene. Go read the opinion in Clark, that is the law of the land here regarding what constitutes a weapon being loaded.

pitchbaby
02-01-2010, 10:05 PM
LOL... No doubt.... but I never said he agreed with that view.... he only warned that too many LEO's will call it that way. He was also quick to point out it was a load of bunk for that to be considered loaded... but I was trying to stick to topic here to illustrate that Blood Ocean was still safe as a kitten, even by that restrictive definition of loaded.... sorry I didn't give the entire story guys... hehe

pitchbaby
02-01-2010, 10:07 PM
BTW Dantodd, I agree fully with the Clark opinion. Just to be clear. I may be new to Calguns, but not to guns!

dantodd
02-01-2010, 10:33 PM
BTW Dantodd, I agree fully with the Clark opinion. Just to be clear. I may be new to Calguns, but not to guns!

No Problem. Lots of this stuff is extremely technical and clarity is important.

Welcome to the fight.

Decoligny
02-02-2010, 8:16 AM
There's even an argument that you could have a magazine in the mag well but nothing in the chamber and still be "unloaded." Exactly how far you can push it is not covered in Clark but THAT far is not a place you want to go.

That argument will land you in jail.

The common understanding is if a round, through any mechanical manipulation of the gun, can be fired, then the gun is loaded.

Full magazine in a gun with no round in chamber only requires you to release the safety, rack the slide, and pull the trigger. Three mechanical manipulations of the gun itself. Therefore the round was in a position from which it could be fired.

dantodd
02-02-2010, 10:52 AM
The common understanding is if a round, through any mechanical manipulation of the gun, can be fired, then the gun is loaded.


If you could post case law or statute to back that up I will cede the point.

Decoligny
02-02-2010, 11:33 AM
If you could post case law or statute to back that up I will cede the point.

People v. Clark clearly shows that they considered both "in the firing chamber", and "in the magazine or clip" as situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word.

The Legislature in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g), provided some examples of how a shell would be "attached" to a firearm so that the firearm is loaded, i.e., in the firing chamber, magazine or clip; situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word, i.e., the shell is placed in a position from which it can be fired. Significantly, the Legislature also provided that a muzzle-loader firearm must be capped or primed, have a powder charge and ball in the barrel or cylinder before it is deemed "loaded," again a definition which is consistent with the common meaning of the term "loaded," i.e., ready for firing.

Given the examples are all consistent with an intent to use the common meaning of "loaded," it follows the Legislature's use of the phrase "attached in any manner" to the firearm was intended to encompass a situation where a shell or cartridge might be attached to a firearm or "loaded" for firing by some unconventional method. The phrase does not demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to deem a firearm loaded no matter how a shell is attached to a firearm; in particular, it does not indicate a clear intent to deem a gun "loaded" when the ammunition, as here, is in a storage compartment which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip and from which the ammunition cannot be fired.

The underlined portion indicates that they indeed deem ammunition in a storage compartment as "cannot be fired" but that ammunition in a magazine or clip, when inserted in the firearm = loaded gun.

dantodd
02-02-2010, 1:14 PM
People v. Clark clearly shows that they considered both "in the firing chamber", and "in the magazine or clip" as situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word.

The Legislature in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g), provided some examples of how a shell would be "attached" to a firearm so that the firearm is loaded, i.e., in the firing chamber, magazine or clip; situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word, i.e., the shell is placed in a position from which it can be fired. Significantly, the Legislature also provided that a muzzle-loader firearm must be capped or primed, have a powder charge and ball in the barrel or cylinder before it is deemed "loaded," again a definition which is consistent with the common meaning of the term "loaded," i.e., ready for firing.

If you read the places where "Magazine or Clip" comes up in Clark it is ALWAYS quoting to 12031(g). Here is the full text of 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.

As you can see it DOESN'T state in 12031 that the magazine must be in the magazine well for the firearm to be considered loaded. What the court added to the definition is the necessity of the cartridge to be "ready for firing."

12031, subdivision (g), provided some examples of how a shell would be "attached" to a firearm so that the firearm is loaded, i.e., in the firing chamber, magazine or clip; situations in which the firearm would be "loaded" in the usual meaning of the word, i.e., the shell is placed in a position from which it can be fired. Significantly, the Legislature also provided that a muzzle-loader firearm must be capped or primed, have a powder charge and ball in the barrel or cylinder before it is deemed "loaded," again a definition which is consistent with the common meaning of the term "loaded," i.e., ready for firing.

As you can see, one could easily change a muzzle loader from unloaded to loaded by simply adding a cap, an action that does not effect the cartridge (if used) at all. It could easily be claimed that since pulling the trigger would not fire the gun it is not "loaded" in common meaning.

The court actually defines the common meaning of loaded as:
The term "loaded" has a commonly understood meaning: "to put a load or charge in (a device or piece of equipment) a gun" or "to put a load on or in a carrier, device, or container; esp: to insert the charge or cartridge into the chamber of a firearm." (Webster's New Collegiate Dict. (1976) p. 674.)

You will notice, no where does the court define "loaded" as having a cartridge in a position from which it can be mechanically manipulated into the chamber.

California Fish and Game code defines loaded as:
"2006. It is unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in any
vehicle or conveyance or its attachments which is standing on or
along or is being driven on or along any public highway or other way
open to the public.
A rifle or shotgun shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes
of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in the
firing chamber but not when the only cartridges or shells are in the
magazine."

So, as you can see Clark refers to 12031 and the dictionary common meaning of loaded (congruent with DFG regulations) in interpreting "loaded" for purposes of interpreting Health and Safety Code 11377.

Now, would I recommend trying this? No. It will in all probability get you in tons of "drama" cost lots of money and isn't a guarantee win. As I said in my original post.