PDA

View Full Version : A loophole for non-CCW holders?


DedEye
03-20-2007, 3:22 AM
This is something I've been thinking about for a couple weeks and am finally getting around to posting.

If I remember the law correctly, you're required to transport a handgun unloaded in a completely closed, locked container. However, from what I remember, there is no restriction on having to be going to/coming from a range or the like as with registered AWs. The only restriction would be places where handguns/guns in general are not allowed (gun free zones, etc).

My question then becomes: wouldn't it be legal to carry a handgun, unloaded, with an empty magazine inserted into the mag well in a container such as a fanny pack with a small luggage combo lock on the zipper? You could keep the password for the combo set on the lock, or to make it locked you could have the combo one digit away, with a fully loaded magazine in a separate zippered pocket of the fanny pack. That way, if the SHTF, you'd have a gun within reach in under a minute (probably closer to under ten seconds, but I'm putting in wiggle room for the time needed to find cover and realize you need your gun).

So, legal? I know there are conflicting reports that a loaded magazine is to be regarded as a loaded weapon, but all I've heard has been anecdotal so far.

tgriffin
03-20-2007, 6:16 AM
I dont think thats legal friend, althought "A" for effort. I believe that a weapon is considered loaded if ammunition is readily available anywhere upon your person or in the immediate area.

Cpl_Peters
03-20-2007, 6:27 AM
I dont think thats legal friend, althought "A" for effort. I believe that a weapon is considered loaded if ammunition is readily available anywhere upon your person or in the immediate area.

I'm pretty sure thats just for gang members. As long as no magazine is inserted and no round in the chamber its considered unloaded for joe schmo average citizen even if loaded mags are on the person. Still would have to say the original idea sounds sketchy but the more I think about it, makes sense. I think on paper it would be legal, as I have never read anything about to/from the range in any laws (maybe I just havent read them all) but it might be hard to convince the judge of something like that if busted. Also since you wouldnt be a CCW holder what would be the ramifications of using the weapon in a case where it was needed?

something tells me Bill will know the answer to this one.

Johnny Diablo
03-20-2007, 6:37 AM
I'm pretty sure thats just for gang members. ...........

You can have a fresh out of the academy city cop looking to do a bang up job his first year out or a mature seasoned cop out in rural Cali. Then we can even play it out as to who is being stopped? You look like trouble? You look like what normally gets dragged into court? You look like a sunday church goer?

Talking with my friend ... ex cop. Anything other than the letter of the law and you are had. Locked container with ammo seperate and definitly not in the mags... in the trunk.

EOD Guy
03-20-2007, 6:50 AM
Sorry, but you can't have a handgun in your vehicle unless you are going to or from certain places as outlined in the penal code. See PC 12026.2.

DedEye
03-20-2007, 6:59 AM
Sorry, but you can't have a handgun in your vehicle unless you are going to or from certain places as outlined in the penal code. See PC 12026.2.

12026.2. (a) Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:
...
(b) In order for a firearm to be exempted under subdivision (a),
while being transported to or from a place, the firearm shall be
unloaded, kept in a locked container, as defined in subdivision (d),
and the course of travel shall include only those deviations between
authorized locations as are reasonably necessary under the
circumstances.
...
(d) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock,
combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked
container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a
motor vehicle.






12025. (a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when
he or she does any of the following:
(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her
control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person.
(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he
or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable
of being concealed upon the person...

bwiese
03-20-2007, 7:56 AM
DedEye,

EODGuy is correct. There is a little-known 'specific destination' concept involved in handgun transportation. This pops up every 3 months or so on Calguns.

It's not as severe or inferrable as AW transportation restrictions, but you really can't drive around with a handgun all week long as a 'truck gun' - even if locked, unloaded, etc. Use your Rem 870 or Rem 700 or Mini14 for that.

The way these laws work ... handguns' (conceable firearms') transport is essentially prohibited with exception of (1) locked/unloaded and (2) going to/from a place where it's authorized to have. (There's some other going-hunting material that's likely usable only in a defense, and only if you haven't said the wrong things to the cop.)

Now, I don't know anyone that's been busted for this destination stuff (when gun's locked/unloaded, no threats, no other crime, etc.) and don't think most cops know this - but if you are transporting a handgun locked & unloaded, you might wanna think in advance how you answer questions in a traffic stop so a lawful destination could legitmately be inferred from your statements.

Lawful destinations for handguns include friends' homes, gunshops, gunranges, out of state (some spare clothing - hey, you're going to Reno!)
Lawful destinations for AWs are similar, but it appears that a friends' home must be owned, not rented - or the landlord's permission is needed.

Cpl_Peters
03-20-2007, 8:48 AM
wow, i didnt know about the destination thing.....and none of my cop friends do either. They have always said unloaded and locked its fine. Even loaded mags are OK as long as separate from the locked weapon. But i guess technically you can always be going somewhere where its legal to transport a handgun...you are eventually going home right? :)

mark3lb
03-20-2007, 9:02 AM
Yeah, I just take the guns from the house to the range and back. I don't even stop for gas, food or nothin.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-20-2007, 9:37 AM
This question, or one very similar, comes up every month or so...

I'd suggest doing a search...this has been hashed out many times already.

Short answer is its completely legal to transport a handgun, concealed, as long as it is in a locked container.

The magazine CAN be loaded as long as it is NOT touching the gun IN ANY MANNER.

12031
(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.


If you dont have a lockable container, you can use the trunk. You can not use the glove box or console as a locked container.

12026.1. (a) Section 12025 shall not be construed to prohibit any
citizen of the United States over the age of 18 years who resides or
is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted
classes prescribed by Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or
Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, from
transporting or carrying any pistol, revolver, or other firearm
capable of being concealed upon the person, provided that the
following applies to the firearm:
(1) The firearm is within a motor vehicle and it is locked in the
vehicle's trunk or in a locked container in the vehicle other than
the utility or glove compartment.
(2) The firearm is carried by the person directly to or from any
motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while carrying the firearm,
the firearm is contained within a locked container.
(b) The provisions of this section do not prohibit or limit the
otherwise lawful carrying or transportation of any pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in
accordance with this chapter.
(c) As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock,
combination lock, or similar locking device.


There are many reasons to be transporting a handgun. The law lists quite a few actually. My favorite is:

12026.2. (a) Section 12025 does not apply to, or affect, any of the
following:

5) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going
directly to, or coming directly from, a fixed place of business or
private residential property for the purpose of the lawful repair or
the lawful transfer, sale, or loan of that firearm.

I can always think of some tinkering that could be done to one of my handguns while at a friends house. :)


I have done this before...on many occasions actually....

On my passenger seat I have a locked container with my UNloaded handgun. In my center console or in my door pocket I have the loaded mag. It would take me all of 6 seconds to unlock the box, load the mag and chamber a round.

If you really want to flex your rights you can open carry as long as the handgun is NOT loaded. Again, loaded means live rounds touching the gun in any manner.

If you are in unincorporated areas you can open carry LOADED. Many towns are located in Unincorporated areas of the County. You'd be surprised how many.

Check for County ordinances PRIOR to carrying open...some counties may have their own laws for that sort of thing.

Cpl_Peters
03-20-2007, 9:38 AM
so what would be the rules about long guns then? still locked unloaded I presume? I was using a GP100 with speed loaders of .38 for a truck gun in bad areas. Revolver is locked in the case and speedloaders in the center console. I chose to use the revolver because of the magazine issue, makes it more clear since the speed loader isnt a part of the weapon but to avoid any jerk LEOs that might hate America, I'll be looking into building a cheap, 870 to drive around.

I always thought that open carry, even unloaded was illegal in incorporated areas. I know you can do it loaded or unloaded in unincorporated areas (and have done so), but thought most local cities have laws against open carry loaded or not.

xenophobe
03-20-2007, 9:41 AM
My question then becomes: wouldn't it be legal to carry a handgun, unloaded, with an empty magazine inserted into the mag well in a container such as a fanny pack with a small luggage combo lock on the zipper?

If you're wearing it? Absolutely not. An unloaded handgun concealed, is still a concealed handgun.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-20-2007, 9:46 AM
If you're wearing it? Absolutely not. An unloaded handgun concealed, is still a concealed handgun.

Unless its in a locked container. I dont believe there is any law that says you cant wear your locked container. :)

FreedomIsNotFree
03-20-2007, 9:50 AM
12035. (a) As used in this section, the following definitions
apply:
(1) "Locking device" means a device that is designed to prevent
the firearm from functioning and when applied to the firearm, renders
the firearm inoperable.
(2) "Loaded firearm" has the same meaning as set forth in
subdivision (g) of Section 12031.
(3) "Child" means a person under 18 years of age.
(4) "Great bodily injury" has the same meaning as set forth in
Section 12022.7.
(5) "Locked container" has the same meaning as set forth in
subdivision (d) of Section 12026.2.


12026.2 (d)
As used in this section, "locked container" means a secure
container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, keylock,
combination lock, or similar locking device. The term "locked
container" does not include the utility or glove compartment of a
motor vehicle.


I dont see anything there that prohibits canvas or nylon being used as the container so long as it is utilizing a "padlock, keylock, combination lock, or similar locking device."

FreedomIsNotFree
03-20-2007, 9:54 AM
By the way....this is no more a "loop-hole" than what we are doing with our OLL's. We are simply following the law to its letter.

stag1500
03-20-2007, 12:12 PM
Having a loaded magazine totally separate from the handgun is also a big no-no. A magazine is considered to be part of the action of the firearm according to the NRA. Therefore, having a loaded magazine is the same as having a loaded handgun as far as the law is concerned.

hoffmang
03-20-2007, 12:21 PM
Magazines with rounds in them are not loaded hand guns unless they are physically attached the firearm and even then you're likely to win.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

Assuming you are not a gang member (as different rules apply) and that you are going to or from a legal place to take your handgun you could by the letter of the law have a locked bag on your person with an unloaded handgun in it and a full magazine in your (unlocked) pocket.

-Gene

Python2
03-20-2007, 2:20 PM
If you are carrying a firearms in your trunk and your destination is say to meet friends and have fun downtown, It could be considered unlawful destination.

Python2
03-20-2007, 2:27 PM
Having a loaded magazine totally separate from the handgun is also a big no-no. A magazine is considered to be part of the action of the firearm according to the NRA. Therefore, having a loaded magazine is the same as having a loaded handgun as far as the law is concerned.

Pardon me, but you are mixing NRA and the Law. NRA is not the law. If you read PC it clearly states a loaded magazine separate from the handgun is not considered a loaded handgun. Intent is something else such as loaded magazine separate from the handgun but with immediate access to both could put you in hot water.

racko
03-20-2007, 2:29 PM
Help me out here. I got a derringer unloaded in a locked fanny pack. I got two bullets in my pocket. I'm walking my dog. Yes or no?

grammaton76
03-20-2007, 3:26 PM
If you read PC it clearly states a loaded magazine separate from the handgun is not considered a loaded handgun. Intent is something else such as loaded magazine separate from the handgun but with immediate access to both could put you in hot water.

It doesn't matter if Gene's mixing it up or not, although I'm pretty sure he has it clear in his head.

What matters is that a lot of LEOs believe that a magazine is a part of the action, and that a loaded mag = loaded weapon.

As I said in the other thread, this is one of those instances where, provided you're aware of the risks (i.e. becoming a test case), feel free to do loaded mags seperate from the weapon. It's absolutely legal, however there are a lot of LEOs who feel otherwise, and you may find yourself harrassed.

gotgunz
03-20-2007, 3:44 PM
Wouldn't it be better to just get the CCW? That way there is no "grey area". I can tell you that it makes things much less complicated.

:D

bwiese
03-20-2007, 3:53 PM
Wouldn't it be better to just get the CCW? That way there is no "grey area". I can tell you that it makes things much less complicated.

Yeah, up in Whites-on-Welfare Town it's probably pretty easy.

Metro areas well-nigh impossible. If you're a Democrat in Sacto, you have a chance.

KenpoProfessor
03-20-2007, 4:05 PM
Wouldn't it be better to just get the CCW? That way there is no "grey area". I can tell you that it makes things much less complicated.

:D

You say that if this was a SHALL issue state, it isn't, otherwise, we wouldn't be *****in' about it.

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde

CalNRA
03-20-2007, 4:13 PM
Wouldn't it be better to just get the CCW? That way there is no "grey area". I can tell you that it makes things much less complicated.

:D

sure, I'll waltz over down to Sheriff Robbin's office, get an application, fill it out, and wait for my permit in the mail in 2-3 weeks, no?

boy I didn't know I was THAT lazy...:eek:

FreedomIsNotFree
03-20-2007, 4:51 PM
Fact is, the vast majority of us will NEVER be granted the "priviledge" of carrying concealed. We must work within the existing laws to carry legally.

Also, I have a moral objection to asking Government for permission to protect myself. Last time I checked it was one of my inalienable rights.


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


Seems pretty clear to me. I often wonder why/how we have let our Government decide differently. Have we forgotten that they are OUR servants?

FreedomIsNotFree
03-20-2007, 4:54 PM
Having a loaded magazine totally separate from the handgun is also a big no-no. A magazine is considered to be part of the action of the firearm according to the NRA. Therefore, having a loaded magazine is the same as having a loaded handgun as far as the law is concerned.

Read the code I posted above. There is NO law that says you cant have a loaded mag as long as it is NOT attached to the firearm in any manner?

I'd love to see where the NRA has said the magazine is part of the action of the firearm. Not that it would make a difference, in the law, if they did, but it would still be entertaining to see what dimwit said that.

Thanks.

CalNRA
03-20-2007, 4:59 PM
Read the code I posted above. There is NO law that says you cant have a loaded mag as long as it is NOT attached to the firearm in any manner?

I'd love to see where the NRA has said the magazine is part of the action of the firearm. Not that it would make a difference, in the law, if they did, but it would still be entertaining to see what dimwit said that.

Thanks.

I have a feeling that the whole point of the mag-disconnect law is to define the magazine as a part of the action, thus making the magazine a part of the gun and make it easier in the near future to change the wording of the law to include rounds in a magazine the same as a loaded gun.

of course the politicians have body guards so they can word anything anyway they want. we are the ones getting screwed over, but who cares right?

M. Sage
03-20-2007, 5:09 PM
The mag disconnect is only part of the "safe handgun" law. And those features are an a la carte thing.

I usually have a loaded mag when I'm transporting a pistol. I stuff an empty mag in the gun just to make sure.

jjperl
03-20-2007, 7:02 PM
lol... if your gona carry, carry in a way the gun is actually useful to you. I mean what good is the gun if it's in a locked bag unloaded? you might was well just leave it home.

Dr. Peter Venkman
03-20-2007, 7:10 PM
If you have a loaded mag on your person to go with your handgun, I would not doubt any PD would charge you with carrying a loaded firearm.

If you were to carry around a gun merely on your hip (as it is legal) it would still be taken away. 100% guarantee.

DedEye
03-20-2007, 7:16 PM
The "magazine being the loaded weapon" part is why I suggested you could have an empty magazine inserted into the mag well of your pistol, hence preventing the magazine from being a spare part.

lol... if your gona carry, carry in a way the gun is actually useful to you. I mean what good is the gun if it's in a locked bag unloaded? you might was well just leave it home.

It seems to me that having a handgun that I can access in under a minute (more realistically under 10 seconds) is more wise than having a handgun at home.

hoffmang
03-20-2007, 7:33 PM
The test case has come and gone. I posted it higher in this thread.

Know that is may cost you time and money to prove that the test case has come and gone however.

-Gene

Librarian
03-20-2007, 7:36 PM
Help me out here. I got a derringer unloaded in a locked fanny pack. I got two bullets in my pocket. I'm walking my dog. Yes or no?Should be no, unless you are walking your dog over to your friend's house to have him gunsmith the derringer (or something like that).

Locked case? Check.
Unloaded? Check.
12026.2 destination? I dunno.

SunshineGlocker
03-20-2007, 7:59 PM
Totally not a loophole. You do have to be going between certain specified destinations when you're transporting a handgun. This is just an entirely bad idea.

There's only one loophole in CA's CCW law, which is that a) if you're a clean-cut looking person who drives carefully and obeys laws generally you will have little or no cause to interact with law enforcement and b) if the gun is registered and there are no other problems (you're not a prohibited person, not also carrying drugs, etc) it's a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are not fun, and will result in legal bills and loss of gun rights for a period of time, but it's not a life-changing thing like a felony, and won't result in jail time.

gotgunz
03-20-2007, 9:57 PM
[QUOTE=bwiese;543146]Yeah, up in Whites-on-Welfare Town it's probably pretty easy.
QUOTE]


Where in the hell did this "I am better than thou" statement come from?

I sense a bit of jealousy for those of you in "tree hugger" land that cant carry.

Neener, neener, neener!

montan
03-20-2007, 10:47 PM
Plenty of good advice and important points to consider listed in this thread. I just have one thing to add. Call a lawyer and hear what he/she has to say. There are lawyers that specializes in gun laws.

leelaw
03-20-2007, 10:53 PM
I dont think thats legal friend, althought "A" for effort. I believe that a weapon is considered loaded if ammunition is readily available anywhere upon your person or in the immediate area.

It used to be that way in the 1980's.

The only way it applies today is if the handgun in question is not registered to you, then the "five second rule" applies.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 12:35 AM
If you have a loaded mag on your person to go with your handgun, I would not doubt any PD would charge you with carrying a loaded firearm.

If you were to carry around a gun merely on your hip (as it is legal) it would still be taken away. 100% guarantee.

So the LEO will charge you with violating the law even though you have not done so? Ridiculous.

And why would a LEO take from me my legally open carried handgun?
Under what justification would that occur? What law is being broken? Since when can LEO's act on their own feelings/thoughts rather than applicable law?

DedEye
03-21-2007, 1:25 AM
So the LEO will charge you with violating the law even though you have not done so? Ridiculous.

And why would a LEO take from me my legally open carried handgun?
Under what justification would that occur? What law is being broken? Since when can LEO's act on their own feelings/thoughts rather than applicable law?

It's exactly for this reason that the Black Panthers legally openly carried loaded firearms into the state capitol in the 1960s. The cops tried to arrest them, but they had violated no crimes :D.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 2:24 AM
It's exactly for this reason that the Black Panthers legally openly carried loaded firearms into the state capitol in the 1960s. The cops tried to arrest them, but they had violated no crimes :D.

Not quite.

The Black Panthers open carried LOADED. It was after that, that the legislature passed 12031 which made it illegal to open carry LOADED while in incorporated areas. The current law still does not prohibit LOADED open carry as long as you're in UNincorporated areas. There are some county ordinances against open carry, regardless of incorporation, so each person should consult their own local laws.

Also, the Black Panthers were arrested that day. 12031 was passed very quickly by the legislature and signed into law by Reagan with no delay. I think the members of the legislature had to change their shorts that day if you know what I mean.

ARRRR-15
03-21-2007, 10:08 AM
I think you forgot about the fanny pack law. I think they were banned after 1991 or something.:D If a LEO doesn't get you the fashion police will be on your tall in a heart beat:D

I think it kinda defeats the whole point of concealed carry. When you need it like when your being robbed you wouldn't be able to get to it. And I'm sure the first thing your robber would ask for would be your fanny pack(thinking you had money in there).

DedEye
03-21-2007, 11:41 AM
Not quite.

The Black Panthers open carried LOADED. It was after that, that the legislature passed 12031 which made it illegal to open carry LOADED while in incorporated areas. The current law still does not prohibit LOADED open carry as long as you're in UNincorporated areas. There are some county ordinances against open carry, regardless of incorporation, so each person should consult their own local laws.

Also, the Black Panthers were arrested that day. 12031 was passed very quickly by the legislature and signed into law by Reagan with no delay. I think the members of the legislature had to change their shorts that day if you know what I mean.

Right, I realize they carried loaded and we're discussing unloaded; my point was simply that cops would want to arrest you (as they did with the Panthers) even though you'd be following the letter of the law.

tenpercentfirearms
03-21-2007, 12:35 PM
Wouldn't it be better to just get the CCW? That way there is no "grey area". I can tell you that it makes things much less complicated.

:DExactly. That is just what I did. I applied for my permit and got one.

Of course that doesn't help those of you living in anti-CCW counties, but heck, we are simplifying the issue right. :rolleyes:

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 1:35 PM
Some of us live in Metro areas of the State. We are not going to be "permitted" to carry concealed, regardless of reasoning.

Obviously, a handgun is most effective with defense if it is loaded and immediately accessible. The next best option is having it maybe 6 seconds away.

Granted, a handgun carried unloaded and locked will NOT be able to help you in ALL situations, because of the timing. But, there are many instances where a person may be able to anticipate a situation and use a handgun, carried in this manner, to legally defend their life or that of a loved one.

So, the bottom line is.....its better than nothin'!

grammaton76
03-21-2007, 2:40 PM
And why would a LEO take from me my legally open carried handgun?
Under what justification would that occur? What law is being broken? Since when can LEO's act on their own feelings/thoughts rather than applicable law?

It's very simple. Soccer mom sees your handgun and freaks out, then calls the cops. Suddenly you're disturbing the peace, inciting a riot (stampede of people running away from you) or something like that. And of course, if you get a particularly dishonest soccer mom (i.e. she's somewhat of an activist, and will lie to get you arrested), you were brandishing it even though your hand never even touched the handle. And whose word do you think is going to matter? Yours? Nope.

Mark in Eureka
03-21-2007, 3:02 PM
There are several exceptions to carrying a concealed firearm. Going to and from hunting, fishing and the range are just three. But this is JUST for carrying a concealed firearm in public. DO NOT EXPECT THE POLICE TO UNDERSTAND THESE EXCEPTIONS.

Having said that, there is another law about carrying a loaded weapon in public. If you have just one round of ammo on you for that weapon, then you just violated that law. Exception: This law does not apply anywhere you may legally discharge a firearm.

A state permit of some kind will exempts you from both provesions of carrying a concealed weapon AND carrying a loaded weapon in public.

hoffmang
03-21-2007, 3:33 PM
Having said that, there is another law about carrying a loaded weapon in public. If you have just one round of ammo on you for that weapon, then you just violated that law. Exception: This law does not apply anywhere you may legally discharge a firearm.


No. Show me the code. You're confusing laws that only apply to those who are known gang members with the code for normal people.

The law is that if there isn't ammunition in the chamber or magazine well of a firearm, it is unloaded.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

-Gene

Librarian
03-21-2007, 3:36 PM
Having said that, there is another law about carrying a loaded weapon in public. If you have just one round of ammo on you for that weapon, then you just violated that law.Sometimes, not always.

There are places in the PC where possession of the weapon and ammunition for it DO mean 'loaded gun' -
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.
- that's possession at the state Capitol, legislative offices or the Governor's mansion, 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.

12023. (a) Every person who carries a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony is guilty of armed criminal action.
(b) Armed criminal action is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison.
But mostly, loaded has the ordinary meaning - ammunition in the weapon, ready for firing.

SunshineGlocker
03-21-2007, 3:58 PM
Granted, a handgun carried unloaded and locked will NOT be able to help you in ALL situations, because of the timing.

So, the bottom line is.....its better than nothin'!

No it isn't better than nothing. It's perfectly illegal, just like carrying a loaded handgun. CA's handgun transportation law requires you to be going to and from certain specified destinations, those being a shooting range, your house, your business, etc. If you're trying to play games with the law and be able to say, "well, technically, I was transporting it and it was locked and unloaded" when it is clear that you have it with you for defensive use, then they will ask, "where are you coming from and where are you going to?" "Um, I'm transporting it to my home." "Where did you come from? I notice some grocery bags in your car. Are you transporting it from Vons?"

If you're going to carry without a permit, then just carry without a permit. Get a small gun that you can conceal invisibly. Have a lawyer's card with you. Obey all traffic laws. Make sure your car is in good condition, clean, registered, insured, etc. Obey all laws in general. Dress neatly and professionally. If you do all those things, how likely are you to get stopped? How likely are you to get searched? I've been stopped a few times in my life, in all cases where I was being stupid and did things I should have avoided doing. Now I drive like a driving instructor and I never get stopped. I've never been searched in my life. I could carry every day without a permit and it wouldn't have any consequences for me. I don't do it, but the point I'm making is, if you're going to carry without a permit, then do it, but don't try nonsense like this.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 4:15 PM
It's very simple. Soccer mom sees your handgun and freaks out, then calls the cops. Suddenly you're disturbing the peace, inciting a riot (stampede of people running away from you) or something like that. And of course, if you get a particularly dishonest soccer mom (i.e. she's somewhat of an activist, and will lie to get you arrested), you were brandishing it even though your hand never even touched the handle. And whose word do you think is going to matter? Yours? Nope.

Regardless of the soccer moms obvious hysterics, there is nothing illegal in that action. I understand the position, someone could lie and say you did something you didn't, but then that person is committing a crime and is also civilly liable.

In a criminal court one persons "word" doesn't amount to much.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 4:31 PM
No it isn't better than nothing. It's perfectly illegal, just like carrying a loaded handgun. CA's handgun transportation law requires you to be going to and from certain specified destinations, those being a shooting range, your house, your business, etc. If you're trying to play games with the law and be able to say, "well, technically, I was transporting it and it was locked and unloaded" when it is clear that you have it with you for defensive use, then they will ask, "where are you coming from and where are you going to?" "Um, I'm transporting it to my home." "Where did you come from? I notice some grocery bags in your car. Are you transporting it from Vons?"

If you're going to carry without a permit, then just carry without a permit. Get a small gun that you can conceal invisibly. Have a lawyer's card with you. Obey all traffic laws. Make sure your car is in good condition, clean, registered, insured, etc. Obey all laws in general. Dress neatly and professionally. If you do all those things, how likely are you to get stopped? How likely are you to get searched? I've been stopped a few times in my life, in all cases where I was being stupid and did things I should have avoided doing. Now I drive like a driving instructor and I never get stopped. I've never been searched in my life. I could carry every day without a permit and it wouldn't have any consequences for me. I don't do it, but the point I'm making is, if you're going to carry without a permit, then do it, but don't try nonsense like this.


Please point me to the law which says its illegal to have your handgun unloaded and in a locked container. I think you may be confused.

As far as the transportation laws go, refer to CA Penal Code 12026.2. which states one of the exceptions to the concealed weapons law is:

5) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going
directly to, or coming directly from, a fixed place of business or
private residential property for the purpose of the lawful repair or
the lawful transfer, sale, or loan of that firearm.

Me and my buddies are always tinkering with our guns. Its fun.

In terms of how I would respond to specific questions from LEO? Why would I respond at all? Besided letting them know I am legally transporting my handgun per the specific laws I can cite by memory, I would have nothing else to say.

And your contention is I would be arrested for this? If it did happen it would only happen one time...after that, the proper parties would be put on notice. I'm not eager to sue any Department or Sheriff, but I will. Not only that, I would sue the Officer personally.

Overall, your post is confusing. First you claim I cant do something because it is "illegal" when it clearly is not, then you go on about how I should break the law and offer suggestions as to how I can get away with it.

Who is the one trying nonsense?

SunshineGlocker
03-21-2007, 4:40 PM
Please point me to the law which says its illegal to have your handgun unloaded and in a locked container. I think you may be confused.

The law that I'm pointing to is the one that says there has to be a specific destination or origin of the journey. Directly is the operative word here. If you're using a locked container to carry a gun for self-defense then someone might decide to look at what directly means.

5) The transportation of a firearm by a person when going
directly to, or coming directly from, a fixed place of business or
private residential property for the purpose of the lawful repair or
the lawful transfer, sale, or loan of that firearm.

Me and my buddies are always tinkering with our guns. Its fun.

Yes it is. Go ahead and transport your gun from your house directly to your buddy's house and back. If that's what you want to do then go ahead. If you want it as a general purpose thing, then that's not going to work. What if you're just coming back from Vons, or from a restaurant, or any of the other places we all go in our day to day lives?

In terms of how I would respond to specific questions from LEO? Why would I respond at all? Besided letting them know I am legally transporting my handgun per the specific laws I can cite by memory, I would have nothing else to say.

It might depend on the circumstances and my assessment of the situation, but I would be generally disinclined to answer any questions about what I've got in the trunk or in a locked container. Even if the trunk is empty, or full of marshmallow peeps or whatever.

Overall, your post is confusing. First you claim I cant do something because it is "illegal" when it clearly is not, then you go on about how I should break the law and offer suggestions as to how I can get away with it.

Who is the one trying nonsense?

I'm just saying, if you want to carry a gun and you don't have a CCW, I think it's better to just carry it rather than try to come up with loopholes. The same thing comes up once a month when someone quotes some part of the hunting and fishing laws that say you can carry when going to or from hunting or fishing or something.

I would rather flat-out break the law and carry a loaded gun in a holster than try to look for such loopholes. To be clear, I don't actually do that. I leave the gun at home and trust my safety to my situational awareness, etc.

1911su16b870
03-21-2007, 5:04 PM
...I would rather flat-out break the law and carry a loaded gun in a holster than try to look for such loopholes. To be clear, I don't actually do that. I leave the gun at home and trust my safety to my situational awareness, etc.

+1 on the accuracy of this statement for those of us that live in limited issue CLEO areas.

+1 Situational awareness is always required.

If your home is LA county and your buisness is in LA county, you break CA law if you carry concealed directly from home to buisness, even though you never exit your vehicle! You are allowed to carry in your home and in your buisness, but you can't carry in your vehicle while going directly from one to the other. This is totally asinine! This is one reason why CA should become a shall issue state.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 5:50 PM
+1 on the accuracy of this statement for those of us that live in limited issue CLEO areas.

+1 Situational awareness is always required.

If your home is LA county and your buisness is in LA county, you break CA law if you carry concealed directly from home to buisness, even though you never exit your vehicle! You are allowed to carry in your home and in your buisness, but you can't carry in your vehicle while going directly from one to the other. This is totally asinine! This is one reason why CA should become a shall issue state.

Of course you can transport in your vehicle while going directly from one to the other. What would make you think otherwise? As long as it is either in the trunk or in a locked container and it is NOT loaded what law are you breaking?

1911su16b870
03-21-2007, 6:03 PM
Of course you can transport in your vehicle while going directly from one to the other. What would make you think otherwise? As long as it is either in the trunk or in a locked container and it is NOT loaded what law are you breaking?

+1 Yes understood, but my point was carry (as in locked and loaded) on the person in the vehicle.

mblat
03-21-2007, 6:23 PM
No it isn't better than nothing. It's perfectly illegal, just like carrying a loaded handgun. CA's handgun transportation law requires you to be going to and from certain specified destinations, those being a shooting range, your house, your business, etc. If you're trying to play games with the law and be able to say, "well, technically, I was transporting it and it was locked and unloaded" when it is clear that you have it with you for defensive use, then they will ask, "where are you coming from and where are you going to?" "Um, I'm transporting it to my home." "Where did you come from? I notice some grocery bags in your car. Are you transporting it from Vons?"

If you're going to carry without a permit, then just carry without a permit. Get a small gun that you can conceal invisibly. Have a lawyer's card with you. Obey all traffic laws. Make sure your car is in good condition, clean, registered, insured, etc. Obey all laws in general. Dress neatly and professionally. If you do all those things, how likely are you to get stopped? How likely are you to get searched? I've been stopped a few times in my life, in all cases where I was being stupid and did things I should have avoided doing. Now I drive like a driving instructor and I never get stopped. I've never been searched in my life. I could carry every day without a permit and it wouldn't have any consequences for me. I don't do it, but the point I'm making is, if you're going to carry without a permit, then do it, but don't try nonsense like this.

Big +1. If you feel that you need a gun 6 seconds away to be safe just carry the thing.
If you just HAVE to HAVE it - have the most useful way.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 6:32 PM
+1 Yes understood, but my point was carry (as in locked and loaded) on the person in the vehicle.

Unless you are driving a cab. If so, then your vehicle is considered your place of business.

SunshineGlocker
03-21-2007, 7:08 PM
Let me put my point another way: You know you're not supposed to carry a handgun for defensive use without a CCW. Now, you may be able to put together some loophole to do it: "Oh, this is in a locked container, the speedloader is separate from it, and I'm heading over to my friend's house, so I'm all legal!" Maybe that will work, but that's putting together an excuse. If you tell that to some officer, you are immediately establishing that you are splitting hairs and being devious and you think you're right and you're making excuses for what you're doing.

Conversely, what happens if you carry well-concealed, you obey all traffic laws, etc, and by some obscure chance, you end up getting searched and the gun is found? At that point, there's nothing devious, legalistic, etc, about what you're doing. You're just breaking the law. Don't lie about it. Be straightforward.

Which will get more respect?

It's like if you get pulled over for some traffic violation. You can try to talk your way out of it by coming up with various arguments to justify what you did, or you can take responsibility and say, "yes, sir, I know what I did wrong. I shouldn't have done it. I'm responsible for that." Which will create more respect? Will legalistic arguing get you out of a ticket, or will a straightforward approach get you out of it? Which will get you out of the ticket, concotting an excuse or accepting responsibility?

If the straightforward approach doesn't get you out, then you have to deal with the legal implications. Starting off with legalistic looking-for-loopholes isn't a good way to start off with the legal system.

I would rather be busted carrying without a license than try to make some argument that my lockable quick-access container with the speed loader next to it, on the way to Vons, is somehow legal.

hoffmang
03-21-2007, 7:11 PM
There is a third answer. Protect your rights by keeping your mouth closed other than to confirm the key facts on record should your traffic stop locate your unloaded and locked weapon.

Then rely on your attorney to show you were complying.

If you feel like following the spirit and intent of these laws, you should just not own a gun in California because that's what these laws are designed to do.

These were all passed by good racists and continue to be enforced by those with little understanding of history.

-Gene

SunshineGlocker
03-21-2007, 7:14 PM
I agree with that. Do keep your mouth shut, except to answer questions directly relevant to driving. That goes a long way to heading off problems. And avoid getting pulled over by driving carefully and following the laws.

1911su16b870
03-21-2007, 7:25 PM
There is a third answer. Protect your rights by keeping your mouth closed other than to confirm the key facts on record should your traffic stop locate your unloaded and locked weapon.

Then rely on your attorney to show you were complying.

If you feel like following the spirit and intent of these laws, you should just not own a gun in California because that's what these laws are designed to do.

These were all passed by good racists and continue to be enforced by those with little understanding of history.

-Gene

+1 on keeping mouth shut, politely, obediently, yes sir, no sir, the picture of compliance!

WOW, how far down does the rabbit hole go? :D

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 8:25 PM
Let me put my point another way: You know you're not supposed to carry a handgun for defensive use without a CCW. Now, you may be able to put together some loophole to do it: "Oh, this is in a locked container, the speedloader is separate from it, and I'm heading over to my friend's house, so I'm all legal!" Maybe that will work, but that's putting together an excuse. If you tell that to some officer, you are immediately establishing that you are splitting hairs and being devious and you think you're right and you're making excuses for what you're doing.

Conversely, what happens if you carry well-concealed, you obey all traffic laws, etc, and by some obscure chance, you end up getting searched and the gun is found? At that point, there's nothing devious, legalistic, etc, about what you're doing. You're just breaking the law. Don't lie about it. Be straightforward.

Which will get more respect?

It's like if you get pulled over for some traffic violation. You can try to talk your way out of it by coming up with various arguments to justify what you did, or you can take responsibility and say, "yes, sir, I know what I did wrong. I shouldn't have done it. I'm responsible for that." Which will create more respect? Will legalistic arguing get you out of a ticket, or will a straightforward approach get you out of it? Which will get you out of the ticket, concotting an excuse or accepting responsibility?

If the straightforward approach doesn't get you out, then you have to deal with the legal implications. Starting off with legalistic looking-for-loopholes isn't a good way to start off with the legal system.

I would rather be busted carrying without a license than try to make some argument that my lockable quick-access container with the speed loader next to it, on the way to Vons, is somehow legal.

I know I have a Constitutionally protected right to defend myself.

I know I have a Constitutionally protected right to defend my property.

These are enumerated in both the US Constitution and the California Constitution.

Now, you may be able to put together some loophole to do it.
Since when is following the law a "loophole"? I guess this entire OLL issue is another loophole from your perspective.


Maybe that will work, but that's putting together an excuse. If you tell that to some officer, you are immediately establishing that you are splitting hairs and being devious and you think you're right and you're making excuses for what you're doing.
What makes you think I would have to explain myself to an Officer? I dont have to say anything. Again, I will cite the law and let the Officer know I am well within my rights.


Which will get more respect?
Huh? Why should I be trying to gain the "respect" of the Officer? Why should I have to lick his/her boots. They are my employee. You sure have your pecking order screwed up. Dont get me wrong....I respect the person behind the badge...I dont advocate disrespecting anyone....but rest assured....they are my servant...NOT the other way around.


It's like if you get pulled over for some traffic violation. You can try to talk your way out of it by coming up with various arguments to justify what you did, or you can take responsibility and say, "yes, sir, I know what I did wrong. I shouldn't have done it. I'm responsible for that." Which will create more respect? Will legalistic arguing get you out of a ticket, or will a straightforward approach get you out of it? Which will get you out of the ticket, concotting an excuse or accepting responsibility?

No offense, but this is a bunch of nonsense. Your point is admit to something, even if you didn't do it, in hopes that the Officer will recognize that you "respect" them and will, with their mighty powers, grace you with a warning....BS.

When a cop pulls somebody over for speeding and asks them how fast they going, do you think its because the LEO does not know already? Of course NOT. They do that so you will incriminate yourself. They do that so they can hold that against you should you decide to fight it.

I cant begin to tell you how many ways there are to get out of so called traffic infractions.

So, you can play by the rules that THEY set for you....I will abide by the law as it is written.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 8:27 PM
Yes Massa....I be a good boy Massa....

I do all I'm told Massa...no, no, no, I dont be breaking none of dem rules Massa.

SunshineGlocker
03-21-2007, 9:02 PM
You're not understanding what I'm saying at all. You're being rude. I'm not advocating volunteering any information to an officer that is outside of things specifically related to driving, vehicle reg, etc. Did you see the part where I said, "keep your mouth shut"? I'm saying that it's foolish to look for borderline loopholes that aren't even really loopholes (note the directly from / to part of the law). I'm saying that dealing with LEOs and courts by making excuses is foolish too.

Scenario A: I decide, for whatever reason, that I need to carry a gun to protect myself. Maybe someone has made threats, whatever. I'm in a location where I know I can't get a CCW. I decide that I'll carry it loaded, in a holster, very very discretely. I get pulled over. I answer only questions relevant to driving. Any other questions, I answer, "I decline to answer that question." Let's say that somehow I end up getting searched. I continue to keep my mouth shut, and contact my lawyer, and deal with it that way.

Scenario B: I try to use this "loophole" in the law. I get a quick-access case, and leave it with me (on the front seat maybe? in a fanny pack?) and carry a speed loader next to it. I get pulled over. Officer immediately sees what it is. I say, "but officer, it's legal!" I get arrested anyway. I shut up and let my lawyer try to explain why what I was doing was legal, even though everyone can see it's BS. They are able to prove that I wasn't coming directly from or to a permitted location.

I'll take Scenario A. I'm doing something illegal in both cases, but one case is trying to make excuses and split hairs. The other is being direct about things.

Drop it with the "yes massa" stuff, because that's actually what you're talking about. Looking for loopholes and making excuses. Note the whole title of this thread is "a loophole for non-CCW holders". Ok, maybe in some cases it's legal to carry an unloaded gun in a quick-access container but there are a lot of ifs there (especially related to directly from and to).

This is not at all like the OLL situation. OLLs are not in a gray area or in a marginal area.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 9:08 PM
Hey, we just see it differently. Reasonable people can agree to disagree. As always, I dont advocate anyone do what I do...I choose my own path after making my own judgements.

anotherone
03-21-2007, 9:08 PM
Remember: not only is it possible for you to get creative with interpreting California state laws, it's also possible for law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts to get equally as creative when they prosecute you. Don't mess around with transporting guns in any way other than is clearly stated by law.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 9:11 PM
Remember: not only is it possible for you to get creative with interpreting California state laws, it's also possible for law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts to get equally as creative when they prosecute you. Don't mess around with transporting guns in any way other than is clearly stated by law.

Well, that just part of the problem. State law is incomplete and vague in many areas.

Take for example carrying a loaded concealed weapon. Based on existing CA law could anyone deduce that it is 100% legal for a taxi driver to carry a loaded concealed handgun while working? You dont get that from the code....you have to read cases. Unfortunately, LEO's dont read case law. Often they need to be reminded that their understanding is not necessarily the law.

hoffmang
03-21-2007, 9:22 PM
I think I've posted this twice in this thread alone.

State law isn't as vague on these issues as people think because its been ruled on at the state appellate level. Please read the law:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

-Gene

Librarian
03-21-2007, 9:28 PM
Take for example carrying a loaded concealed weapon. Based on existing CA law could anyone deduce that it is 100% legal for a taxi driver to carry a loaded concealed handgun while working? You dont get that from the code....you have to read cases. That's one I seem to have missed, too. Would you please post the case reference so I can look it up?

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 9:31 PM
I think I've posted this twice in this thread alone.

State law isn't as vague on these issues as people think because its been ruled on at the state appellate level. Please read the law:
http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

-Gene

Gene,

The case you quoted is great...I've read it many times, but that case does not cover the taxi cab driver issue that I was speaking of....

People v. Marotta (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 611
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/128/supp1.html

Defendant was charged with carrying, concealed within a vehicle, a .25 caliber automatic pistol in violation of Penal Code section 12025 (count I); carrying a concealed weapon on his person in violation of subdivision (b) Penal Code section 12025 (count II); [128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 4] and carrying a loaded firearm on his person and in a vehicle in a public place and on a public street in violation of "vehicle code" (meaning Penal Code) section 12031 (count III). fn. 1

The cause was submitted on a written stipulation that defendant possessed a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol on the floorboard of his taxicab, which cab he was operating under a lease he secured that evening from Speedy Cab Company. Defendant carried the weapon for protection while operating the taxicab, and had no license to carry it. The court found defendant guilty on all counts, and imposed a probationary sentence.

Defendant appeals the conviction, asserting the same issue he presented to the trial court: that he was entitled to keep the pistol in his "place of business"--his taxicab--under the provisions of Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (h). We agree with defendant's contention and reverse the conviction.

hoffmang
03-21-2007, 9:35 PM
Freedom,

I concur - I was posting Clark again regarding whether a gun is loaded or not.

Marotta is a bit less generally applicable but it can support unlicensed CCW for plumbers and general contractors and such.

-Gene

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 9:52 PM
Freedom,

I concur - I was posting Clark again regarding whether a gun is loaded or not.

Marotta is a bit less generally applicable but it can support unlicensed CCW for plumbers and general contractors and such.

-Gene

I'd say it is very specific. I dont believe this would apply to plumbers, general contractors, or anyone else that, as part of their job, requires them to work outside of their vehicle.

Here is a case on point...(emphasis added by me...for humor)

People v. Wooten (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 168 , 214 Cal.Rptr. 36
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/168/168.html&search=12026

Defendant's vehicle was not his "place of business" within the meaning of Penal Code section 12026

[2a] Defendant claims that his "place of business" as a bounty hunter was his vehicle, so Penal Code section 12026 fn. 1 should compel reversal of [168 Cal.App.3d 173] his conviction for carrying a concealed, loaded weapon in his truck's glove compartment. He relies upon People v. Marotta (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 [180 Cal.Rptr. 611] holding that the Penal Code section 12026 "place of business" exemption applied to a taxicab.

We first note that Marotta is readily distinguishable. While taxicab drivers must do business in their cabs, bounty hunters do not. Their job is to get out of their car and arrest bail jumpers, not to run over them. The vehicle is simply a means to transport the bounty hunter. Unlike a taxi driver whose work cannot be done without a vehicle, bounty hunters may leave their own cars behind and use airplanes, buses, trains or taxis to pursue bail jumpers.

Second, the reasoning of the Marotta court is not persuasive. The clear legislative purpose of section 12025 is to prohibit the carrying around of concealed weapons. Section 12026 provides an exception for possession in one's residence or place of business. The natural meaning of the term "place of business" is a fixed location, simply because almost all businesses are conducted in some office, store or other building. When a business is mobile, one generally says that the business is not conducted in any particular place, but in an area. Giving Penal Code section 12026 the broad meaning advocated by defendant would render it meaningless. Salesmen, truck drivers, delivery persons--in short, anyone whose business puts them in transit--could use section 12026 to justify an exemption from section 12025. The obvious result would be that even convicted felons (other than those specified) could easily set themselves up as traveling salesmen and carry a concealed weapon in their car with impunity. This would frustrate the obvious legislative purpose of section 12025. (Cf. People v. Foley (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33 [197 Cal.Rptr. 533].) [3] We are required to construe penal statutes according to the fair import of their terms, to effect their objectives and promote justice. (Pen. Code, 4;Bowland v. Municipal Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 479, 487-488 [134 Cal.Rptr. 630, 556 P.2d 1081].) [2b] Construing Penal Code section 12026 to treat defendant's pickup truck as a "place of business" simply because he worked as a part-time bounty hunter would not serve any of these ends.

Librarian
03-21-2007, 10:26 PM
People v. Marotta (1981) 128 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1 , 180 Cal.Rptr. 611
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/128/supp1.html
Cool! Thank you.

jumbopanda
03-21-2007, 10:28 PM
I think I'd rather be mugged than be caught wearing a fanny pack...

FreedomIsNotFree
03-21-2007, 10:33 PM
I think I'd rather be mugged than be caught wearing a fanny pack...

Actually, I think it is more likely that you would be mugged FOR wearing a fanny pack....haha.