PDA

View Full Version : Locked CCW?


choprzrul
07-29-2010, 9:30 AM
I got to thinking about this after reading/posting elsewhere.

12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
"revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
explosion, or other form of combustion,...

PC definition of what qualifies as a pistol, revolver, etc for CCW. Of particular interest is the bolded part. If my Taurus is locked, it is in a configuration that has been specifically designed NOT to expel a projectile. This is different from a normal safety as a tool is required to make the gun operational. Kinda like a bullet button. If I CCW a locked Taurus, would I not fall outside of the definition of the 12000 chapter?

I realize the tactical shortcomings of whole lock thing, I am just specifically wondering about a gun that is incapable of being fired as one that would not meet the 12000 definition.

JJE
07-29-2010, 9:46 AM
If the courts haven't already decided this one way or another, I would say that the most straightforward interpretation of the code is that a pistol, revolver or firearm is ALWAYS designed to expel a projectile, even if it has locks or safeties that temporarily render it incapable of performing its primary purpose, and even while those locks or safeties are engaged.

I'm not an attorney and have never even sat in a real courtroom, but I think that even I could convince a jury that you are wrong about this.:)

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 9:49 AM
wouldn't that kinda be like saying by keeping the door locked on your car that it now designed NOT to be driven.

Temporarily preventing something from performing a certain fuction does not negate what it was designed to do.

dieselpower
07-29-2010, 9:53 AM
wouldn't that kinda be like saying by keeping the door locked on your car that it now designed NOT to be driven.

Temporarily preventing something from performing a certain fuction does not negate what it was designed to do.

Closer analogy. Is a car with a locked ignition designed to drive...yes, it just can't at that time.

Good try Chopzrul!!! :D keep looking up the Regs and codes...I like how you think

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 10:01 AM
Per above replies, how do we manage to get by with bullet buttons? I think that the requirement of having to use a tool is what makes the difference., i.e. the mag is not removable or the gun can't fire a projectile without the use of a tool. I don't understand what the difference would be? Obviously the mag, mag well, and mag release were designed to make for a removable magazine config. In similiar fashion the handgun was designed to fire a projectile. The difference is the addition of features that render the original design unusable without specific manipulation with a tool to again yield function. Where am I wrong?

JJE
07-29-2010, 10:19 AM
I think that the difference is that PC 12001 is written very simply, so it needs to be interpreted in the most straightforward way. On the other hand, the "assault weapon" laws are very specific, so it is possible to take advantage of this specificity to find a legal way to do something that the law-writers didn't intend.

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 11:33 AM
working from my phone so can't quote. Per dieselpowers car analogy, I would contend that when an ignition lock is engaged, the car is designed not to work. As such, that car is specifically designed not to function as a car in ant way.

dantodd
07-29-2010, 11:49 AM
Per above replies, how do we manage to get by with bullet buttons? I think that the requirement of having to use a tool is what makes the difference.

There is nothing in the AW law that says a firearm has to be designed to have a non-removable magazine. It specifically exempts firearms which have magazines that require a tool to be removed from being AWs if their only other problem is "evil features."

With the concealed carry issue it has to do with the designed purpose of the "thing" rather than its current functioning. You could have a stripped pistol frame concealed and still be in violation because that frame is legally a firearm.

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 12:07 PM
dantodd

So, by that line of reasoning, if a handgun was specifically designed and sold as a non-firing device; then we could conceal it all day without running afoul. If said non-functioning device could be altered with a user made tool, then it would become functional after the fact and would avoid 12000 definitions?

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 12:11 PM
dantodd

So, by that line of reasoning, if a handgun was specifically designed and sold as a non-firing device; then we could conceal it all day without running afoul. If said non-functioning device could be altered with a user made tool, then it would become functional after the fact and would avoid 12000 definitions?


You're basically arguing the difference between a toy or replica gun vs. and actual firearm. If it can be converted or sltered in someway by the user to actually fire a projectile then it IS a firearm, not a toy or replica.

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 12:20 PM
untamed1972

That is exactly what I am saying. The PC 12000 very specifically says DESIGNED in its definition for ccw. If the device was not designed to fire a projectile, how could anything in the 12000 chapter apply? What happens after the design, manufacture, and sale of said device is outside the scope of 12000.

Where am I wrong?

dantodd
07-29-2010, 12:50 PM
dantodd

So, by that line of reasoning, if a handgun was specifically designed and sold as a non-firing device; then we could conceal it all day without running afoul. If said non-functioning device could be altered with a user made tool, then it would become functional after the fact and would avoid 12000 definitions?

No. If you alter an airsoft to become a firearm it is still a firearm. You redesigned it. It would be the same as making an AR from an 80% receiver. There is no exemption or definition be which a firearm can be made a non-firearm by an easily reversible, minor alteration.

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 1:41 PM
Ok, now I have answers going both ways:

With the concealed carry issue it has to do with the designed purpose of the "thing" rather than its current functioning.

Dantodd, per above, is saying that it doesn't matter what the current config is, but rather the disigned purpose.

If you alter an airsoft to become a firearm it is still a firearm. You redesigned it.

Here it is being argued that redesign is what makes it a firearm. It can't be both per the PC's "designed" wording.

Which of the following equations would be considered to be "designed" to "expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion"?

1. Originally designed as firearm + no modifications == firearm T or F?

2. Originally designed as firearm + modification to disable == firearm T or F?

3. Originally designed NOT to fire + no modifications == firearm T or F?

4. Originally designed NOT to fire + modification to allow fire == firearm T or F?

kf6tac
07-29-2010, 1:45 PM
I think the issue here is that you'll be hard-pressed to find any court in any jurisdiction that considers slapping a lock onto something a redesign. If you alter an airsoft to a firearm, you've made some pretty significant changes to the internals (unless it was a pretty questionable "airsoft" to begin with) and one can plausibly argue that you've made a new design. Telling a judge or jury that you redesigned a gun just by locking it doesn't even pass the smell test.

ETA: If the locking argument holds, then by the same token, one could argue that by flipping the external safety on a handgun that has one, you've rendered it okay to carry concealed without a permit.

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 2:12 PM
Perhaps an example.

XYZ Company designs a replica of something like a 92f with the exception that it has no trigger and no trigger guard. Everything else functions exactly like a 92f, but there is absolutely no way it is ever going to fire since there is no way to pull the trigger and engage the hammer/firing pin disconnect. It is designed from the ground up to specifically NOT fire a projectile. As such, you could buy, sell, trade, give away freely without paperwork since it is by definition not a firearm. Can we all agree that this type of device would NOT be a firearm? Can we all agree that such a device falls outside the definition found in the 12000 chapter and that we could stick this thing in our belt and walk around with it hidden all day long?


Now, 6 months later, ABC Company comes along and figures out a way to make a spring loaded trigger like device that happens to be able to be snapped into place on XYZ Company's device that will make XYZ Company's device go bang. ABC's device will snap back out just as easily thus rendering XYZ's device inert again.

Now, obviously, you would have to remove XYZ's device from concealment to snap in ABC's device, thus 12000 would no longer apply since nothing is concealed. Are you with me here? 2 devices, 2 different companies, 0 functioning firearms when separated, 0 devices designed to be a firearm. Kinda like fishing. If you are standing there with the rod in one hand and the reel in the other, it's going to be difficult for LE to claim that you were fishing since neither device was designed to work by itself.

.

dantodd
07-29-2010, 2:21 PM
No that would be more than an 80% complete firearm

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 2:24 PM
No that would be more than an 80% complete firearm

I thought the 80% deal was a federal measure and not related to chapter 12000 of CA PC.

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 2:29 PM
you are arguing design vs. redesign now.

If you changed something from it's original design, you have now REdesigned it into something other then what it was....not any different then if you designed and built it from scratch yourself. So now you would be carrying something that YOU designed to fire a projectile. By altering it to do something it was not originally intended to do you have in essense designed a NEW product...which happens to fire a projectile which makes it a firearm which is illegal to carry w/o a permit.

That would be like saying because I built a car out of scrap pipe and a riding mower engine that it's not really a car therefore it doesn't need to be registered nor a license to operate it on the street because the peices I made it with weren't originally designed to be a car.

You cant take one thing that does fuction A, alter to become another that does function B, yet still claim it is still the original thing.

Can I take a washing machine and convert it into a refridgerator but still call it washing machine even though it can't wash clothes anymore?

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 2:44 PM
you are arguing design vs. redesign now.

If you changed something from it's original design, you have now REdesigned it into something other then what it was....not any different then if you designed and built it from scratch yourself. So now you would be carrying something that YOU designed to fire a projectile. By altering it to do something it was not originally intended to do you have in essense designed a NEW product...which happens to fire a projectile which makes it a firearm which is illegal to carry w/o a permit.

That would be like saying because I built a car out of scrap pipe and a riding mower engine that it's not really a car therefore it doesn't need to be registered nor a license to operate it on the street because the peices I made it with weren't originally designed to be a car.

You cant take one thing that does fuction A, alter to become another that does function B, yet still claim it is still the original thing.

Can I take a washing machine and convert it into a refridgerator but still call it washing machine even though it can't wash clothes anymore?

In post #15 I am saying that something that is specifically designed NOT to fire a projectile simply cannot qualify under PC 12000's definition:

12000. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as "The
Dangerous Weapons Control Law."

12001. (a) (1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol,"
"revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person"
shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a
weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any
explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less
than 16 inches in length.

How could a device that is designed as a non firing replica be applicable on the above PC?

Untamed1972
07-29-2010, 2:59 PM
In post #15 I am saying that something that is specifically designed NOT to fire a projectile simply cannot qualify under PC 12000's definition:



How could a device that is designed as a non firing replica be applicable on the above PC?


As long as it is left in it's original non-firing design...then it doesn't. If you alter it to fire a projectile it has now been designed BY YOU to fire a projectile, so it does qualifiy under the PC.

Notice is says "designed to fire"...not "originally designed to fire".


So for example what you're saying is you should be able to buy an othersie fully fuctional pistol but that comes from the factory with a solid barrel, hence it can't fire a projectile, hence not a firearm. But then you remove the slide and install a regular barrel and now may fire a projectile, that now despite being able to fire a projectile it shouldn't be considered a firearm because it was not originally desiged to do so.

choprzrul
07-29-2010, 3:06 PM
As long as it is left in it's original non-firing design...then it doesn't. If you alter it to fire a projectile it has now been designed BY YOU to fire a projectile, so it does qualifiy under the PC.

Notice is says "designed to fire"...not "originally designed to fire".


So for example what you're saying is you should be able to buy an othersie fully fuctional pistol but that comes from the factory with a solid barrel, hence it can't fire a projectile, hence not a firearm. But then you remove the slide and install a regular barrel and now may fire a projectile, but it shouldn't be considered a firearm because despite being able to fire a projectile it was not originally desiged to do so.



No, what I am suggesting is 2 devices. Both designed specifically NOT to be a firearm by 2 separate companies. 1 kept safely in your IWB holster, the other kept in your front pocket. Neither can fire anything by themselves.


.

Librarian
07-29-2010, 8:18 PM
untamed1972

That is exactly what I am saying. The PC 12000 very specifically says DESIGNED in its definition for ccw. If the device was not designed to fire a projectile, how could anything in the 12000 chapter apply? What happens after the design, manufacture, and sale of said device is outside the scope of 12000.

Where am I wrong?

There's a difference between 'designed to do X' in the general case, and 'designed NOT to do X in a specific case'.

A pistol is designed to throw lead out the muzzle, in the direction it happens to be pointed.

It is designed NOT to do that when the trigger is not activated - drop safeties etc.

But it's still a pistol when the trigger is not activated.

taperxz
07-29-2010, 8:35 PM
I think the one thing the OP is missing out on with the trigger lock or lock period is that it the lock is a seperate component placed on the firearm.

The lock was designed to be able to put on and take off of a firearm designed to shoot a projectile.

Basically you did not redesign the firearm. Just like the holster you carry in, it to was designed to carry your firearm. A holstered firearm or a locked firearm is still a firearm. Lets just call the lock an accessory.

Anothercoilgun
07-29-2010, 8:55 PM
Cumbersome but just might save your life and or get you out of jail. Travel with a buddy all the times at lease in new or dangerous lands. Disassemble and give the buddy the barrel and you keep the action. If the SHTF and you are not the first in the active shooters line of sight, you have some time to reassemble and take defense. If you get checked you do not posses a firearm and neither does your buddy. :)

Has this ever been brought up in a real case?

MasterYong
07-30-2010, 4:27 PM
I was under the impression that locked CCW was legal.

By locked CCW I mean carrying an unloaded pistol in a locked case.

Am I losing my mind? I may know someone that routinely puts an unloaded pistol in a locked case (with mags at the ready) in their backpack when they hike... is that not legal?

I read the whole thread... maybe I'm misunderstanding what the OP is getting at when he says "locked CCW".... don't we call this LUCC?

theoutcast32
07-30-2010, 5:06 PM
according to the law, we can ccw rail guns.