PDA

View Full Version : Penal Code 12025 Concealed Carry, Loophole?


XDshooter
04-21-2007, 2:38 PM
I have found a loophole, whether or not it is any use is up to you.

I don't know if this has been discussed or not, but 12025 of the Penal Code states:

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.


Now there are many sections that protect a person from 12025 listed in 12025.5, 12026, 12026.1, 12026.2, and 12027.


The kicker is that in 12025 there is a clause that states this:

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.


So, that means as long as the gun is unloaded (still inconclusive on loaded mag = loaded gun) you can travel in a vehicle or any public place not prohibited from having firearms (govener's mansion :rolleyes: , government offices, etc). This means that you don't need to have the gun in a locked container when traveling as long as it is in a belt holster.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 2:49 PM
Loaded mag doesn't equal loaded firearm according to case law. Hoffmang has a PDF of the court decision that spells that out.

Neat find, let's see where it goes.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 2:55 PM
You can open carry an unloaded handgun in CA if you are in an incorporated area.

You can open carry a LOADED handgun in CA if you are in an UNincorporated area.

Nothing new....been the law for many years. There is actually an entire website dedicated to the open carry issue.

http://opencarry.org/ ....check em out.

slowpoke
04-21-2007, 2:56 PM
Any magazine whether in the gun or in the immediate presence of the gun is considered loaded. Case law was with a drug dealer having an unloaded gun and a full magazine 20ft. away from him behind some bushes. Court said it's still considered loaded.

As far as having an unloaded gun in a holster while driving... it's a great way to get a gun screwed into the side of your head by the cops.:D

Besides, why would any law abiding citizen want to carry an empty gun on the hip?

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 3:14 PM
Any magazine whether in the gun or in the immediate presence of the gun is considered loaded. Case law was with a drug dealer having an unloaded gun and a full magazine 20ft. away from him behind some bushes. Court said it's still considered loaded.

As far as having an unloaded gun in a holster while driving... it's a great way to get a gun screwed into the side of your head by the cops.:D

Besides, why would any law abiding citizen want to carry an empty gun on the hip?


Many before you came into this forum claiming that a loaded magazines constitute a loaded firearm. It does not....unless you are a gang member.

If its legal to open carry unloaded why would a cop screw his gun into the side of my head? It could happen, but I assure you, a lawsuit would follow. There is no excuse for pointing a gun at a citizens head for doing something that is 100% legal.

I often transport a handgun with me. I keep it locked in a small box with loaded mags within reach. Granted, its not as good/fast as a CCW, but in only 6 seconds I can be ready...

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 5:46 PM
Any magazine whether in the gun or in the immediate presence of the gun is considered loaded. Case law was with a drug dealer having an unloaded gun and a full magazine 20ft. away from him behind some bushes. Court said it's still considered loaded.

As far as having an unloaded gun in a holster while driving... it's a great way to get a gun screwed into the side of your head by the cops.:D

Besides, why would any law abiding citizen want to carry an empty gun on the hip?

Negative. The case I was referring to was a drug dealer with a shotgun that had shells stored in the buttstock. The court said that even though live ammo was attached to the firearm, it was NOT loaded, and opined that "loaded" means loaded.

ETA: I have a cop who knows penal code pretty well that knows I transport my stuff with loaded mags nearby to and from the range, and never advised against doing it. Another cop MIGHT freak out, but I'm not going to let that stop me.

Dont Tread on Me
04-21-2007, 5:49 PM
What FreedomIsNotFree said WRT loaded mags if you are not a gang member.

I often transport a handgun with me. I keep it locked in a small box with loaded mags within reach. Granted, its not as good/fast as a CCW, but in only 6 seconds I can be ready...

If you make that a bag that can be ripped open you might save 3 seconds. It only has to be a locked container and there are many week bags out there with cheap zips.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 5:57 PM
Cheap bag + assisted open knife.... Do the math. :D

AJAX22
04-21-2007, 6:00 PM
What FreedomIsNotFree said WRT loaded mags if you are not a gang member.



If you make that a bag that can be ripped open you might save 3 seconds. It only has to be a locked container and there are many week bags out there with cheap zips.

I believe there is some case law on how 'secure' the bag has to be.

There was an instance with a guy who had the gun in a paper bag that was padlocked through holes punched in it.

IIRC it did not fly

(this is one of those hearsay cases that I actually haven't read the brief on)

ligamentum flavum
04-21-2007, 6:17 PM
I believe there is some case law on how 'secure' the bag has to be.

There was an instance with a guy who had the gun in a paper bag that was padlocked through holes punched in it.

IIRC it did not fly

(this is one of those hearsay cases that I actually haven't read the brief on)

That's got to be the best "hearsay" story I've ever heard! Gotta give the guy credit for trying. :D

Dont Tread on Me
04-21-2007, 6:30 PM
There was an instance with a guy who had the gun in a paper bag that was padlocked through holes punched in it.


I like the way this guy was thinking. It would be good to know if this stood up or not.

You've got me thinking about a holster with a paper bag "locked" over it. Please note I am not taking myself totally seriously.

Super_tactical
04-21-2007, 6:35 PM
Here's my loophole:

First offence for carrying a loaded and concealed handgun:

Misdemeanor w/$300 fine.

As long as your not a gang member, or are commiting a crime while carrying.

Remember, you're carrying concealed. Don't get made!!

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 6:37 PM
Here's my loophole:

First offence for carrying a loaded and concealed handgun:

Misdemeanor w/$300 fine.

As long as your not a gang member, or are commiting a crime while carrying.

Remember, you're carrying concealed. Don't get made!!

So, your "loophole" is to break the law?

Super_tactical
04-21-2007, 6:48 PM
It's a shall issue CCW for $300.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 6:52 PM
Actually, it's free, up till you get caught...

And you won't get the gun you're carrying back... So add another $600 or so.

Super_tactical
04-21-2007, 6:58 PM
Actually, it's free, up till you get caught...

And you won't get the gun you're carrying back... So add another $600 or so.

Unless you carry an old Glock. Then add $400.

If any of you don't think the POSSIBILITY of paying $700 to defend your life or your families life, that's up to you.

To me, $700 is NOTHING compared to losing my wife.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 7:04 PM
IMO, it adds a possibility of being shot. Let's say you do have an "encounter," the LEO freaks out, pulls his weapon and has an ND...

I'll stick with a knife for now...

OCResident
04-21-2007, 7:30 PM
Why don't you seriously look into getting a legal CCW permit. They are not impossible to get - even in California. In fact, there are many counties, including Orange County, that are reasonably accessible to an average person that can demonstrate "Good Cause" - which can be a variety of things. There are even people getting them in parts of "gun-hating" LA County.

Check out http://www.calccw.com.

thedrickel
04-21-2007, 7:41 PM
Here's my loophole:

First offence for carrying a loaded and concealed handgun:

Misdemeanor w/$300 fine.

As long as your not a gang member, or are commiting a crime while carrying.

Remember, you're carrying concealed. Don't get made!!

With this on your record, you will be screwed if you move to a shall-issue county and apply for a CCW. I don't totally disagree with you tho ;)

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 7:41 PM
Wow, two pages later and this thread goes way of course. Let me address some things.


Loaded mag doesn't equal loaded firearm according to case law. Hoffmang has a PDF of the court decision that spells that out.
Neat find, let's see where it goes.

If you are referring to People vs Clark, then no, that appeal decision did not say anything about a loaded mag does not equal a loaded firearm. The firearm in question was a shotgun and it had to to with the shells being attached to the buttstock.

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. PEOPLE VS CLARK DOESN"T PROVE ANYTHING.



You can open carry an unloaded handgun in CA if you are in an incorporated area.

You can open carry a LOADED handgun in CA if you are in an UNincorporated area.

Nothing new....been the law for many years. There is actually an entire website dedicated to the open carry issue.

http://opencarry.org/ ....check em out.

Now you're getting off track. Opencarry.org does not care about open carry while unloaded, they care about LOADED.

My point here, loophole, is concerning transportation of a firearm capable of being concealed while unloaded, therefore you don't ever have to have it in a locked case as long as it is in your holster AND UNLOADED.



Any magazine whether in the gun or in the immediate presence of the gun is considered loaded. Case law was with a drug dealer having an unloaded gun and a full magazine 20ft. away from him behind some bushes. Court said it's still considered loaded.

As far as having an unloaded gun in a holster while driving... it's a great way to get a gun screwed into the side of your head by the cops.:D

Besides, why would any law abiding citizen want to carry an empty gun on the hip?

FreedomIsNotFree is correct. This situation only applies when an individual is going to/has commited a crime, nothing else.

Reguardless of what the cops are going to do, you would have done nothing against the law. PERIOD. Afterwards you can sue for wrongful arrest.



As for loaded mag equals load firearm in the Penal Code 12031, IT IS CONSIDERED LOADED.

The law is very specific in this case:

"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 which 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"

I know some of you are going to bring up the following line

"thereof attached to the firearm"

This does not say that the mag or clip has to attached to the firearm. REPEAT IT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED.

The word "thereof" means "concerning to". Meaning that if a cartridge is in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip, it is considered "attached" to the firearm and thus considered "loaded".

Don't try to misread this part of the law, it is specific in what it means.

WokMaster1
04-21-2007, 7:48 PM
Whatever happened to all of us (at least most of us) who wanted to move up to Markleeville (Alpine county) & taking over the county gov't? Then our elected Sheriff WILL issue CCW to all who qualify. That should solve all issues about getting a CCW. Forget about the loopholes. It's not worth it!

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 7:54 PM
Whatever happened to all of us (at least most of us) who wanted to move up to Markleeville (Alpine county) & taking over the county gov't? Then our elected Sheriff WILL issue CCW to all who qualify. That should solve all issues about getting a CCW. Forget about the loopholes. It's not worth it!


I am completely down with that. :cool:

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 8:02 PM
How is having ammo in a magazine "attaching" ammunition to the firearm? A magazine that's removed from a firearm isn't a permanant part of the firearm... You may be in trouble with something like a K31 or Lee-Enfield rifle mag, though, since it's detachable but has the rifle's serial number on it. Then I could see an argument that you have a "part" of the firearm loaded. Not the case with the majority of pistol mags. I seriously can not see how having rifle ammo in a clip could come even CLOSE to being considered "attached to the firearm." I'm being unfair there, but you did mention clips.

My point about Clark is that he DID have ammo attached, literally, to a firearm, and the court ruled that "attached" doesn't equal "loaded."

Your argument hinges on a simpler definition of "attached," which is what Clark refutes. If a bullet is in the CHAMBER, if the magazine is in the MAG WELL, if the clip is in the CLIP GUIDE, then the firearm is loaded.

A parallel to the Clark decision would be an M1 Carbine with two loaded mags in a buttstock mag pouch. Is it loaded? Hell no.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 8:07 PM
Wow, two pages later and this thread goes way of course. Let me address some things.




If you are referring to People vs Clark, then no, that appeal decision did not say anything about a loaded mag does not equal a loaded firearm. The firearm in question was a shotgun and it had to to with the shells being attached to the buttstock.

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN. PEOPLE VS CLARK DOESN"T PROVE ANYTHING.







Now you're getting off track. Opencarry.org does not care about open carry while unloaded, they care about LOADED.

My point here, loophole, is concerning transportation of a firearm capable of being concealed while unloaded, therefore you don't ever have to have it in a locked case as long as it is in your holster AND UNLOADED.





FreedomIsNotFree is correct. This situation only applies when an individual is going to/has commited a crime, nothing else.

Reguardless of what the cops are going to do, you would have done nothing against the law. PERIOD. Afterwards you can sue for wrongful arrest.



As for loaded mag equals load firearm in the Penal Code 12031, IT IS CONSIDERED LOADED.

The law is very specific in this case:

"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 which 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"

I know some of you are going to bring up the following line

"thereof attached to the firearm"

This does not say that the mag or clip has to attached to the firearm. REPEAT IT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED.

The word "thereof" means "concerning to". Meaning that if a cartridge is in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip, it is considered "attached" to the firearm and thus considered "loaded".

Don't try to misread this part of the law, it is specific in what it means.


Thats amazing...the law is so clear, you say, that you interpret something in it that it does not say.

I also like how you claim a CA Court of Appeals case means nothing...

You are simply reading things into the law that do not exist.

How you or I "read" the law actually means very little. Anyone can have an opinion. What does matter, in a court of law, is what the courts have said on the matter.

I suggest you read Clark a bit more thoroughly.....if you do you will find...

"Finally, we note that at most the Attorney General has raised a potential ambiguity in the use of the term "loaded." [3] As Clark correctly observes, ambiguities in statutes are to be construed in favor of the defendant; " ' "[t]he defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt, whether it arise out of a question of fact, or as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute. [Citation.]" ' " (People v. Garfield (1985) 40 Cal.3d 192 , 200 [219 Cal.Rptr. 196, 707 P.2d 258].) [1c] Thus, to the extent an ambiguity exists between whether the Legislature intended the term "loaded" to be used in its ordinary sense (i.e., a shell placed in a position ready to be fired) or to be used in an unusual sense (i.e., including a shell placed in a storage compartment from which it cannot be fired), we adopt the construction more favorable to Clark, i.e., that the term was intended to be used in its ordinary sense and that the shotgun here was not loaded."

Any ambiguity in the law shall be construed in FAVOR of the defendant. Its clearly there in the decision. Not sure how you come to the conclusion that Clark does not apply. You seem to have what you think is right in your head, and are twisting definitions and not taking note of Clark, to come to the same conclusion as your preconceived understanding.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 8:10 PM
How is having ammo in a magazine "attaching" ammunition to the firearm? A magazine that's removed from a firearm isn't a permanant part of the firearm... You may be in trouble with something like a K31 or Lee-Enfield rifle mag, though, since it's detachable but has the rifle's serial number on it. Then I could see an argument that you have a "part" of the firearm loaded. Not the case with the majority of pistol mags. I seriously can not see how having rifle ammo in a clip could come even CLOSE to being considered "attached to the firearm." I'm being unfair there, but you did mention clips.

My point about Clark is that he DID have ammo attached, literally, to a firearm, and the court ruled that "attached" doesn't equal "loaded."

Your argument hinges on a simpler definition of "attached," which is what Clark refutes. If a bullet is in the CHAMBER, if the magazine is in the MAG WELL, if the clip is in the CLIP GUIDE, then the firearm is loaded.

A parallel to the Clark decision would be an M1 Carbine with two loaded mags in a buttstock mag pouch. Is it loaded? Hell no.

The courts were clear in Clark. "Attached to" does not mean loaded. It takes some verbal gymnastics to try and say anything else really.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 8:13 PM
Your taking it out of context.

Reguardless of what you think "attached" means. It is very clear in the law that "attached" to the firearm is considered loaded and they list examples.


It is very clear. A cartridge in the magazine is considered "attached" to the firearm, which is considered loaded, whether or not the magazine is not in the mag well.


In People vs Clark, they concluded that cartridges "attached" to the buttstock do not fall under the Penal Code 12031.

They also concluded that the shell was not in a position to fire under the Health and Safety Code section 11370.1.

There is no ambiguity in a cartridge in the magazine. PC 12031 clearly states this. There was ambiguity in a shell on the buttstock however.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 8:14 PM
The courts were clear in Clark. "Attached to" does not mean loaded. It takes some verbal gymnastics to try and say anything else really.

I agree with you there. "Attached to" means "attached in a ready-to-use" manner, like I spelled out in my post you quoted.

Super_tactical
04-21-2007, 8:15 PM
Why don't you seriously look into getting a legal CCW permit. They are not impossible to get - even in California. In fact, there are many counties, including Orange County, that are reasonably accessible to an average person that can demonstrate "Good Cause" - which can be a variety of things. There are even people getting them in parts of "gun-hating" LA County.

Check out http://www.calccw.com.

Two words:

Alameda County

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 8:17 PM
Thats amazing...the law is so clear, you say, that you interpret something in it that it does not say.

I also like how you claim a CA Court of Appeals case means nothing...



I never stated anywhere that an appeal meant nothing, I simply stated that it does not conclude a load mag equals a loaded gun and thus does not help anyone.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 8:20 PM
Why don't you seriously look into getting a legal CCW permit. They are not impossible to get - even in California. In fact, there are many counties, including Orange County, that are reasonably accessible to an average person that can demonstrate "Good Cause" - which can be a variety of things. There are even people getting them in parts of "gun-hating" LA County.

Check out http://www.calccw.com.

I do want a CCW permit, but here in LA County, they only seam to hand them out to the rich and connected.

I have been there and they provide the best info possible for getting a CCW. I may attempt at some point, but I want to be very very very prepared for this county, including whether to go to the Sherrif or PD.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 8:21 PM
Dude, how is ammo in a mag that's not in the gun ammo that's attached to a firearm? Think about it. Is the magazine a part of the gun? Will the gun not function without THAT magazine? It's not like a slide or a frame, it's something that's ultimately disposable.

The buttstock was attached to a single-shot shotgun. A single shotshell is analogous to a magazine in that event.

If what you're saying is true, then walking around with a loaded magazine but no firearm is illegal, since you're walking around with a loaded gun.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 8:32 PM
Dude, how is ammo in a mag that's not in the gun ammo that's attached to a firearm? Think about it. Is the magazine a part of the gun? Will the gun not function without THAT magazine? It's not like a slide or a frame, it's something that's ultimately disposable.

The buttstock was attached to a single-shot shotgun. A single shotshell is analogous to a magazine in that event.

If what you're saying is true, then walking around with a loaded magazine but no firearm is illegal, since you're walking around with a loaded gun.

Yup, the law sucks don't it.

In all truth it doesn't really matter what you or I think about what constitutes a loaded firearm, it's what the law says unfortunately.


I am in the process of getting a number of attorneys opinion on the matter. It would be nice if it was concluded that a loaded mag doesn't equal a loaded gun. That way the nice loophole I referred to, would enable us to open carry with a handgun in a holster and a mag loaded on the belt or in your pocket.

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 8:37 PM
I've been hoping to hear from Hoffmang on this one... he's on top of it, but I'm telling you that a loaded mag outside the firearm isn't a loaded firearm.

TKo_Productions
04-21-2007, 8:39 PM
The law is very specific in this case:

"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 which 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"

I know some of you are going to bring up the following line

"thereof attached to the firearm"

This does not say that the mag or clip has to attached to the firearm. REPEAT IT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED.

The word "thereof" means "concerning to". Meaning that if a cartridge is in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip, it is considered "attached" to the firearm and thus considered "loaded".

Don't try to misread this part of the law, it is specific in what it means.

Your statements are egregiously wrong. Unless you're a gang member, a loaded magazine thats not inserted into the magazine-well of a firearm DOES NOT constitute a loaded firearm.

You can safely (and legally) transport a handgun along with a loaded magazine in a locked box provided that the magazine isn't inserted into the handgun.

The SoCal Gunner
04-21-2007, 9:05 PM
Would the court use logic?

If a loaded magazine is in a front pocket and the firearm holstered on the belt constitutes a loaded firearm, then logic says one can shoot the firearm.

If it doesn't fire, then the firearm is unloaded unless the prosecutor wants to claim that it was dud ammunition.

CalNRA
04-21-2007, 9:28 PM
Yup, the law sucks don't it.

In all truth it doesn't really matter what you or I think about what constitutes a loaded firearm, it's what the law says unfortunately.


I am in the process of getting a number of attorneys opinion on the matter. It would be nice if it was concluded that a loaded mag doesn't equal a loaded gun. That way the nice loophole I referred to, would enable us to open carry with a handgun in a holster and a mag loaded on the belt or in your pocket.

I suggest you read the explanation on the CHP website before telling people they are breaking the law.

The CHP explicitly states that the loaded simply has to be not inserted in the magwell during transportation.

When I drive with my gun I have a copy of the CHP website print out.

Librarian
04-21-2007, 9:46 PM
I am in the process of getting a number of attorneys opinion on the matter. It would be nice if it was concluded that a loaded mag doesn't equal a loaded gun.Looks like this has already been done - See How to own a gun and stay out of jail, California Edition (http://www.amazon.com/How-Own-Gun-Stay-Jail/dp/0964286440/ref=sr_1_5/103-7024295-6378223?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177215504&sr=8-5). That's the 2007 update - my 1999 copy says, at p39In 1996, the California Court of Appeal clarified the phrase "attached in any manner." To be "loaded", the court said, a gun must have ammunition in a position where it is ready for firing. Ammunition in a clip or magazine or clip is considered ready for firing. But ammunition only in a storage space, such as the stock of a rifle or a shotgun, is not. Thus, the rule is that a gun is "loaded" when there is ammunition attached in any manner to the gun, if that ammunition is also in a position where it is ready for firing.The AG in Clark tried to use the 12031(g) definition as written; the appeals court rejected that.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.
Our conclusion that the Legislature intended "loaded" as used in Penal Code section
12031 to reflect the common definition is supported by the court in People v. Heffner
(1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 643, 650 [139 Cal.Rptr. 45], which reached the same conclusion ("the apparent purpose [of the 'loaded' definition] is to make it clear that for purpose of
section 12031 the usual meaning of 'loaded firearm' is to apply."). In Heffner, the court
noted when the Legislature adopted Penal Code section 12031, it also adopted another
Penal Code statute which contained a special definition of "loaded," i.e., that a firearm
was loaded if the firearm and unexpended ammunition were in the immediate possession
of the same person. This definition applied to the offenses of bringing a "loaded" firearm
into certain state governmental offices and residences of certain state officers and
legislators. (People v. Heffner, supra, 70 Cal.App.3d at p. 650; Pen. Code, 171e.) Since
Heffner, the Legislature has adopted this special definition of "loaded" for the offense of
carrying a loaded firearm with an intent to commit a felony. (Pen. Code, [45 Cal.App.4th
1155] 12001, subd. (j); 12023.) fn. 1 Significantly, the Legislature has not amended
the common definition of "loaded" as used in section 12031 nor elected to provide a
specialized definition of "loaded" for Health and Safety Code section 11370.1.
Ammunition in a magazine, removed from the weapon it is designed for, is not in a position where the ammunition is ready to fire - no firing pin, no chamber, no barrel. In the mag well, that's loaded, because all those needed parts are in close proximity and arranged for use.

But please pursue this - if you and your lawyers come to a conclusion on which they'll stake their license(s), I'll happily refer people to the paid opinion they provide. Machtinger's a lawyer, I'm not.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 9:58 PM
From CHP website:


I will be traveling to California and want to carry my weapon. I currently have a concealed weapon permit. How can I legally transport my weapon while driving through the state?

California law does not recognize concealed weapon permits from other states; therefore, they would not be held valid. If you wish to transport a handgun during your California visit, it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.

If you have additional questions, contact the California Department of Justice at 916-227-3703.


Very nice that is says that, but their statement is not law, and you could still be charged in a court of law. Whether or not you will is up to a jury. You could easily say you used information obtained from a California Government Agency Website and followed it accordingly.

I wish this could be true. No permit needed, just carry your unloaded handgun and a loaded mag, really nice for self-defense.


Get Hoffmang in here on his thoughts on the Poeple vs Clark case.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 10:04 PM
Librarian,

I'll let everyone know what I find. Wish me luck, but I am pretty sure after much research, they will find that a loaded mag constitutes a loaded gun under P.C. 12031.

hdcd
04-21-2007, 10:11 PM
Take a gander from a prior posting --> http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

From this thread --> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=52540&page=2&highlight=ccw

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 10:14 PM
Take a gander from a prior posting --> http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/People-v-Clark-(1996).pdf

I have that document already. It does not save you.

hdcd
04-21-2007, 10:15 PM
Did I say it would?

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 11:10 PM
Did I say it would?

Oh Sorry, just my assumption.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-21-2007, 11:36 PM
I have that document already. It does not save you.

Can you please explain what legal training you have, along with related case law, which leads you to believe that Clark does not apply?

Clark is THE case on point. Directly. If you have another case which you believe supports your position, please do share. If not, your repeated statements that Clark does not apply shows a deficiency in legal logic.

CalNRA
04-21-2007, 11:39 PM
XDshooter:

you joined calguns today, you started this thread and all of your posts have been in this thread trying to argue with people who have done research about this issue.

:rolleyes:

M. Sage
04-21-2007, 11:51 PM
Gotta go with CalNRA on this one: we've covered the "is a loaded magazine a loaded firearm?" issue ad naseum. The consensus among people who are much more educated in the legal arena than I am is that no, it is not.

The CHP's website does give you some protection, actually. They can't just go lying to you without any kind of repercussion.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 11:52 PM
Can you please explain what legal training you have, along with related case law, which leads you to believe that Clark does not apply?

Clark is THE case on point. Directly. If you have another case which you believe supports your position, please do share. If not, your repeated statements that Clark does not apply shows a deficiency in legal logic.

Same to you or anyone else, what legal training have you had to believe it to be true? I have seen so many threads that state People vs Clark saves you, yet it doesn't, and I posted the relevant infomation as to why, including citing directly from the case.

Many others have brought their own "logic" in to state what a constitutes a loaded gun or what "attached" means, but that is not law and therefore not relevant.



XDshooter:

you joined calguns today, you started this thread and all of your posts have been in this thread trying to argue with people who have done research about this issue.

What makes you believe that I haven't done any research on the matter just because I joined today? :rolleyes: That is complete ignorance. Join date and post count have no relevance at all.

I have been researching this pretty constantly for months now.

Also, it's not arguing, it's called a discussion.

XDshooter
04-21-2007, 11:57 PM
Gotta go with CalNRA on this one: we've covered the "is a loaded magazine a loaded firearm?" issue ad naseum. The consensus among people who are much more educated in the legal arena than I am is that no, it is not.

The only thing that has been covered is Clark, which was simply posted and stated that the court concluded a loaded mag is not a loaded gun (nowhere in the document is this stated or concluded), yet no one seemed to actually read the document and understand it.



The CHP's website does give you some protection, actually. They can't just go lying to you without any kind of repercussion.

Hopefully it can, but discovering what the law actually says is much safer.



Look, many of you are thinking that I am arguing or being combative, but that is not the case. I dispise the way laws are written, so I try to asertain what they mean exactly by means of discussion with other people.

FreedomIsNotFree
04-22-2007, 12:05 AM
Same to you or anyone else, what legal training have you had to believe it to be true? I have seen so many threads that state People vs Clark saves you, yet it doesn't, and I posted the relevant infomation as to why, including citing directly from the case.

Many others have brought their own "logic" in to state what a constitutes a loaded gun or what "attached" means, but that is not law and therefore not relevant.




What makes you believe that I haven't done any research on the matter just because I joined today? :rolleyes: That is complete ignorance. Join date and post count have no relevance at all.

I have been researching this pretty constantly for months now.

Also, it's not arguing, it's called a discussion.


So, your position is everyone has their opinion....be damned what the CA Court of Appeals has to say on the matter....everyone has their opinion.

If you believe Clark supports your position, as I requested before, post the relevant wording.

You said before you hired a team of lawyers to research this issue. If your research was so sound, why are you hiring a team of attorneys to duplicate what you have already done?

And lets be clear here.....you have not claimed that there is a better case, on point, than Clark, but that Clark deals specifically with a Rifle and can not be applied to handguns? Is this correct?

CalNRA
04-22-2007, 12:13 AM
This topic has been beaten to the point where the dead horse has turned into horse-stew and glue.

I'm out.

hoffmang
04-22-2007, 12:19 AM
XDshooter,

You have two major problems with your interpretation (sorry all - out having a nice night out and not interpreting law on Calguns...)

1. The rule of lenity. Basically, Clark makes it pretty clear that in California, tie goes to the defendant. There are pretty strong arguments that loaded means what we all think it means - not some stretch constructive possession argument about the magazine with rounds in it in my pocket and the empty rifle in my car. Don't forget that your interpretation would apply to handguns and long guns..

2. That the California legislature knows how to state that some people can't carry loaded magazines and unloaded firearms means that unless that applies to you, it does not.

Lets all read 12021.5

12021.5. (b) Every person who carries a loaded or unloaded firearm together
with a detachable shotgun magazine, a detachable pistol magazine, a
detachable magazine, or a belt-feeding device on his or her person,
or in a vehicle, during the commission or attempted commission of any
street gang crimes described in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section
186.22, shall, upon conviction of the felony or attempted felony, be
punished by an additional term of imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years in the court's discretion. The court
shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in
aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the reasons for its
enhancement choice on the record at the time of sentence.
(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) "Detachable magazine" means a device that is designed or
redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a rifle that is designed or redesigned to
fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a rifle that is designed
or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading
mechanism of a rifle that is designed or redesigned to fire
ammunition.
(2) "Detachable pistol magazine" means a device that is designed
or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a semiautomatic firearm that is not a rifle
or shotgun that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a firearm that is not a
rifle or shotgun that is designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(C) To feed ammunition continuously and directly into the loading
mechanism of a firearm that is not a rifle or a shotgun that is
designed or redesigned to fire ammunition.
(3) "Detachable shotgun magazine" means a device that is designed
or redesigned to do all of the following:
(A) To be attached to a firearm that is designed or redesigned to
fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth or rifled bore.
(B) To be attached to, and detached from, a firearm that is
designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell through a smooth
bore.
(C) To feed fixed shotgun shells continuously and directly into
the loading mechanism of a firearm that is designed or redesigned to
fire a fixed shotgun shell.
(4) "Belt-feeding device" means a device that is designed or
redesigned to continuously feed ammunition into the loading mechanism
of a machinegun or a semiautomatic firearm.

Its a pretty standard rule of construction that if the legislature knows how to say it one way, and doesn't say it that way in the other sections of the Penal Code or the Health and Safety Code - then they don't mean the same thing.

As such, Clark controls and we who are not involved in committing a street gang crime are not carrying loaded weapons when we have an ammunition feeding device full of ammunition in our pocket and an unloaded firearm around.

-Gene

PS: Can you explain the loophole again? I'm feeling dense.

XDshooter
04-22-2007, 12:40 AM
XDshooter,

You have two major problems with your interpretation (sorry all - out having a nice night out and not interpreting law on Calguns...)

1. The rule of lenity. Basically, Clark makes it pretty clear that in California, tie goes to the defendant. There are pretty strong arguments that loaded means what we all think it means - not some stretch constructive possession argument about the magazine with rounds in it in my pocket and the empty rifle in my car. Don't forget that your interpretation would apply to handguns and long guns..

2. That the California legislature knows how to state that some people can't carry loaded magazines and unloaded firearms means that unless that applies to you, it does not.

Its a pretty standard rule of construction that if the legislature knows how to say it one way, and doesn't say it that way in the other sections of the Penal Code or the Health and Safety Code - then they don't mean the same thing.

As such, Clark controls and we who are not involved in committing a street gang crime are not carrying loaded weapons when we have an ammunition feeding device full of ammunition in our pocket and an unloaded firearm around.

-Gene

PS: Can you explain the loophole again? I'm feeling dense.

Well my point on the loophole was drown when everyone got off topic and started the whole load mag debate.

My point was that you can tranport an unloaded firearm in your vehicle, or any public place that is not illegal to have firearms period, by carrying it in your holster, thus it doesn't have to be in a locked container.

As I stated in my first post, whether or not this has any use to you is up to you.


As for my two problems in interpretation:

1) You have a good point here. Even thought they denied his appeal upon P.C. 12031, they let it apply by the Health and Safety Code. That means that if there are two laws and one says you are guilty and one doesn't, then tie goes to the defendant. That is nice to know.

That also means that the loaded gun meaning in P.C. 12031 is null by the Health and Safety Code. Is that right to assume?


2) As far as 12021.5, that is used to convict someone of a FELONY. A loaded gun still carries a misdemeanor offense violation. Just by having 12021.5 does not automatically mean it is legal to have a loaded mag in a public place by none-street gang members.

xenophobe
04-22-2007, 2:17 AM
2) As far as 12021.5, that is used to convict someone of a FELONY. A loaded gun still carries a misdemeanor offense violation. Just by having 12021.5 does not automatically mean it is legal to have a loaded mag in a public place by none-street gang members.

Please cite law or statue that specifically outlaws the possession of loaded magazines.

Of course, you can't. Freedom and Hoffman are both correct. They're consistently correct on issues much more sophisticated than this and they have been for the 1+ years they've been members here. I would argue very few specific situations of Constitutional law and interpretation with Gene, but not mundane California firearms laws.

You're arguing the wrong side of a pretty much cut and dried issue that has been hashed out to death, where there is little room for opinion.

You originally said:
(still inconclusive on loaded mag = loaded gun)

The facts have been presented to you, you just want to keep arguing.

bwiese
04-22-2007, 2:40 AM
To keep yourself clean from a 'wandering judge' and appeals process, it may behoove oneself - in this particular situation - to have an empty mag in the gun if a loaded mag is carried along outside the gun.

That completely stops any argument that the unloaded gun is incomplete and that the separate loaded mag is 'part of' that gun.

XDshooter
04-22-2007, 8:25 AM
Please cite law or statue that specifically outlaws the possession of loaded magazines.


IF a loaded mag constitutes a loaded gun then the following law applies:

12031. (a)(1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(2) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:
(G) In all cases other than those specified in subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, as a misdemeanor, punishable 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 imprisonment and fine.


See where I am going with this. A nice way to open carry.

IF a loaded mag does NOT constitute a loaded gun then you could just:

open carry loaded with in an unincorporated area and then upon coming into an incorporated area simply take the mag out


IF NOT, then there is really no point for self-defense to being able to carry openly unloaded in a holster if you can't have loaded mags elsewhere on you.

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2007, 9:14 AM
To me, $700 is NOTHING compared to losing my wife.

I guess that depends on the quality of the wife... ;)

NoTime2Shoot
04-22-2007, 9:15 AM
I like cheese.

E Pluribus Unum
04-22-2007, 9:57 AM
My point was that you can tranport an unloaded firearm in your vehicle, or any public place that is not illegal to have firearms period, by carrying it in your holster, thus it doesn't have to be in a locked container.

No law states that you must carry your handgun in a locked container.

Carrying a handgun in a locked container is an exception to the concealed weapon law.


What the law basically says is this:

1) Its illegal to carry a concealed weapon

B) Its OK to carry it concealed if it is in a locked case (other than the glovebox) or the trunk.

So... if you want to carry your handgun out of sight, it must be in a locked case. If it is in a holster, or on the seat next to you... or anywhere else in the vehicle in plain site then a locked case is not require.



P.S.
Now here is a thought......

Technically, if you carried an unloaded firearm in a fanny pack and that fanny pack had a lock on it, that would be legal. You could then carry the loaded mags in your pocket.

Dont Tread on Me
04-22-2007, 10:38 AM
B) Its OK to carry it concealed if it is in a locked case (other than the glovebox) or the trunk.


(I miss read your logic your are correct but here is a reference anyway)

From "How to Own a Gun and Stay Out of Jail" pp 51.

"The gun must be inside a motor vehicle and must be locked in the vehicle's trunk or in a locked container other than the utility or glove compartment"

I'm not sure if you can have the gun in a locked container and then put that container in the glove or utility compartment.

Jeremy K.
04-22-2007, 10:57 AM
I'm not sure if you can have the gun in a locked container and then put that container in the glove or utility compartment.

You most certainly can due to already satisfying the primary requirement of having the handgun in a locked container.

The glove box and utility compartments can't be used as the primary locked container that is all.

hoffmang
04-22-2007, 10:57 AM
The reason 12021.5 was passed is that gang bangers would open carry an unloaded handgun "shotgun" and the guy in the back would carry two loaded magazines. They would walk on the gun charges, and hence you get 12021.5. I'm pretty sure the legislative history on 12021.5 makes that clear but I don't have it right at hand.

On the loophole:

You can open carry an unloaded handgun in your car. The issue you get into is making sure that its truly in plain sight as a right handed holster may be considered "concealed" and its your word against the LEO. Open carrying an unloaded handgun will likely cause you trouble, but its not a convictable offense.

The better version of "poor mans CCW" is an unloaded handgun in a locked briefcase with magazines in your pocket or otherwise at hand (but not in the locked case.) Note that a lock is not heavily defined here so a luggage lock works. You can carry that anywhere you're going for a lawful purpose.

-Gene

M. Sage
04-22-2007, 11:33 AM
Ahh, yes. Can't forget the "destination" part of the handgun transport law...

1911su16b870
04-22-2007, 11:41 AM
The better version of "poor mans CCW" is an unloaded handgun in a locked briefcase with magazines in your pocket or otherwise at hand (but not in the locked case.) Note that a lock is not heavily defined here so a luggage lock works. You can carry that anywhere you're going for a lawful purpose.-Gene

+1 In LA County this is the law abiding citizens only resort.

xenophobe
04-22-2007, 1:16 PM
IF a loaded mag constitutes a loaded gun then the following law applies:

Fixed it for you. BIG 'if'. Of course, you didn't cite any code that prohibits the possession of a loaded magazine.

To reiterate, a loaded magazine is not considered a loaded firearm unless you are a gang member or in the commission of a crime.

Dont Tread on Me
04-22-2007, 3:27 PM
It is not definitive, but this is the CHP's advice to CA visitors.

http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html

"If you wish to transport a handgun ... it should be carried unloaded in a locked container. In the absence of a suitable container, you may secure the unloaded handgun in the locked trunk of a passenger car. Ammunition may be kept in the same container or trunk, but the handgun must remain unloaded with no rounds in the cylinder and no loaded magazines in the magazine well.

If you have additional questions, contact the California Department of Justice at 916-227-3703."

I'm sensitive to LEO websites as the Metropolitan police in England screwed up the registration deadline for assault air weapons (no joke). It turned out to not be a defense for not registering them by the "correct" deadline.

Dont Tread on Me
04-22-2007, 3:33 PM
The better version of "poor mans CCW" is an unloaded handgun in a locked briefcase with magazines in your pocket or otherwise at hand (but not in the locked case.)

I'm going to have to setup a tactical handgun stage with this draw method to figure out the draw time. I'm not belittling your idea. This is legal and better than leaving you gun in the safe.

I think the concealed gun law exception for shooting club members on the way to the range should not be forgotten.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=54803

XDshooter
04-22-2007, 5:33 PM
The better version of "poor mans CCW" is an unloaded handgun in a locked briefcase with magazines in your pocket or otherwise at hand (but not in the locked case.) Note that a lock is not heavily defined here so a luggage lock works. You can carry that anywhere you're going for a lawful purpose.

-Gene

There are lots of listed places as for lawful purposes, so that is nice.


If not on your holster, then have a holster in the trunk taped up to rear deck. That way it's in a locked container (ie the trunk).

A lock might be troublesome in a dangerous situation.

hoffmang
04-22-2007, 5:48 PM
A trunk handgun is an easy solution and you don't even have to have the locked container if the trunk is entirely enclosed.

I'm about to install a trunk rifle in my sedan...

-Gene

bwiese
04-22-2007, 6:42 PM
A trunk handgun is an easy solution and you don't even have to have the locked container if the trunk is entirely enclosed.

I'm about to install a trunk rifle in my sedan...



Mossberg 500 "Cruisers" and/or other cheaper 18" shottys almost justify bench seats in a pickup truck!

:)

GunOwner
06-20-2007, 1:00 AM
The reason 12021.5 was passed is that gang bangers would open carry an unloaded handgun "shotgun" and the guy in the back would carry two loaded magazines. They would walk on the gun charges, and hence you get 12021.5. I'm pretty sure the legislative history on 12021.5 makes that clear but I don't have it right at hand.

On the loophole:

You can open carry an unloaded handgun in your car. The issue you get into is making sure that its truly in plain sight as a right handed holster may be considered "concealed" and its your word against the LEO. Open carrying an unloaded handgun will likely cause you trouble, but its not a convictable offense.

The better version of "poor mans CCW" is an unloaded handgun in a locked briefcase with magazines in your pocket or otherwise at hand (but not in the locked case.) Note that a lock is not heavily defined here so a luggage lock works. You can carry that anywhere you're going for a lawful purpose.

-Gene

Why can't you have the mags in the same locked case? The CHP answer seems to imply you can have the mag and gun in the same locked place?

hoffmang
06-20-2007, 1:14 AM
I don't see any law that forbids you from having loaded magazines inside the case that the handgun is locked into. However there are two issues with it. On the practical side, I think I can load faster from my pocket than from inside the case but others could easily differ on that. Secondly, having loaded magazines in the locked case does leave you outside of any potential federal safe harbor you might have - especially when traveling.

-Gene

tiki
06-20-2007, 6:09 AM
Any know when 12021.5 became a statute?

Librarian
06-20-2007, 3:47 PM
Any know when 12021.5 became a statute?I have documentation showing it was in place in May of 1994. The California on-line codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen.html) [FindLaw link] are not annotated the way US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/uscode/) is, on line. Maybe another source has it (probably the printed West listings have it.)

----

ETA Lexis says 1989.

Jicko
06-20-2007, 3:59 PM
I think someone should invent a low-profile, LOCKABLE holster that encapsulate the whole pistol. Can be just digital or couple of button push lock.

Then you can wear another loaded magazine on your belt....

hoffmang
06-20-2007, 4:30 PM
I have documentation showing it was in place in May of 1994. The California on-line codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen.html) [FindLaw link] are not annotated the way US Code (http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/uscode/) is, on line. Maybe another source has it (probably the printed West listings have it.)

----

ETA Lexis says 1989.

HOLY SHIZNIT. If that definition was in the Penal Code at or before the adoption of 12276.1, then the new magazine rulemaking is absolutely barred by legislative interpretation.

-Gene

Liberty1
06-20-2007, 4:47 PM
A lockable holster: http://www.gunaccessories.com/Bagmaster/PistolPacks.asp
I own one and it's good for CCW with license or if sans license can be locked by a small luggage style lock. Unloaded locked firearm (loaded mags separate) concealed carry without license can only be done between specific places as outlined in (I believe) PC 12026.

Open carry unloaded in a belt holster with separate loaded mags is no crime in an incorportated city unless you knowingly enter a 1000' k-12 school zone per PC 626.9 (felony), a government building per 171b, or are engaged in armed criminal action per PC 12023 (which criminalizes possession of ammo separate from the gun that can be fired from your firearm).

Expect only a few leos to fully understand these codes. The BG's make it easy as they don't lock up or unload their concealable firearms before being caught and as such leos rarely read past the first sentence of code anyway (IME - in my experience).

Scarecrow Repair
06-20-2007, 6:43 PM
A trunk handgun is an easy solution and you don't even have to have the locked container if the trunk is entirely enclosed.

I'm about to install a trunk rifle in my sedan...

-Gene

Let me ask a ignernt question here ... if you have a gun in the trunk and that is legal, what happens to that legality during the brief period at the mall where you load up shopping bags into the open trunk? I am especially thinking of a rifle under the trunk lid which would be visible while the lid is open and no doubt startle some passerby. I am not asking if you would be likely to get away with it due to the brevity of the openness, only if it would still be legal.

E Pluribus Unum
06-20-2007, 7:16 PM
Let me ask a ignernt question here ... if you have a gun in the trunk and that is legal, what happens to that legality during the brief period at the mall where you load up shopping bags into the open trunk? I am especially thinking of a rifle under the trunk lid which would be visible while the lid is open and no doubt startle some passerby. I am not asking if you would be likely to get away with it due to the brevity of the openness, only if it would still be legal.

Carrying an unloaded rifle/shotgun in public is legal.

Carrying an unloaded handgun in plain sight is legal.

The mere fact that the person saw it proves that it was legal because if it were concealed (illegal) the person would not have seen it.

P.S.
It is legal to conceal a shotgun/rifle. Technically, if you could fit a 12 guage down your pants, its legal.

Librarian
06-20-2007, 8:06 PM
HOLY SHIZNIT. If that definition was in the Penal Code at or before the adoption of 12276.1, then the new magazine rulemaking is absolutely barred by legislative interpretation.

-Gene
Just rechecked Lexis - HISTORY:

Added Stats 1989 ch 841 1. Amended Stats 1st Ex Sess 1993-94 ch 32 3 (SB 37X), effective November 30, 1994; Stats 1995 ch 263 2 (AB 99).

Amendments:

1994 Amendment:

(1) Designated the former section to be subd (a); (2) substituted "conviction of the felony or attempted felony" for "the conviction of any such felony or attempted felony of which he or she is conflicted" in the first sentence of subd (a); and (3) added subds (b) and (c).

1995 Amendment:

Amended subd (c) by (1) adding "a" after "To be attached to" at the beginning of subd (c)(2)(A); and (2) substituting "paragraph (20)" for "paragraph (2)" in subd (c)(5).

Note

Stats 1995 ch 263 provides:

SEC. 4. The changes made by Sections 2 and 3 of this act are declaratory of existing law.
History for 12276.1 is HISTORY:

Added Stats 1999 ch 129 7 (SB 23), operative January 1, 2000. Amended Stats 2000 ch 967 3 (AB 2351); Stats 2002 ch 911 3 (AB 2793).

Lexis uses "Deering's California Codes Annotated Copyright 2007 by Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. a member of the LexisNexis Group."