A thought on Open Carry

[Blackwater OPS]

It occurred to me today that that People v. Clark would seem to allow open carry of a semi-auto pistol with the mag loaded, but not fully seated so no rounds would feed (empty chamber of course). Obviously this is pushing things, not really in terms of legality, but rather taunting those who might like to enforce non-existent laws (or only know the PC and not case law).

In any case IMO it would be more practical than having to draw and load a magazine from some other place, and actually may be more legal than an empty mag well with a concealed loaded mag somewhere else (since the mag *could* considered part of the pistol for "concealed" purposes.

Anyone feeling ballsy?

[MudCamper]

You would get arrested, and charged, and prosecuted. Convicted? Probably. Maybe not, but probably yes. Is it worth risking your firearms rights for the rest of your life?

[Blackwater OPS]

You would get arrested, and charged, and prosecuted. Convicted? Probably. Maybe not, but probably yes. Is it worth risking your firearms rights for the rest of your life?

Wow that's amazing! Do you give out lotto numbers as well? :rolleyes: That's quite a bit of speculation considering no law is being broken. I find that last bit kinda ironic also, is exercising my rights worth losing them?!?

[Shotgun Man]

It occurred to me today that that People v. Clark would seem to allow open carry of a semi-auto pistol with the mag loaded, but not fully seated so no rounds would feed (empty chamber of course). Obviously this is pushing things, not really in terms of legality, but rather taunting those who might like to enforce non-existent laws (or only know the PC and not case law).

In any case IMO it would be more practical than having to draw and load a magazine from some other place, and actually may be more legal than an empty mag well with a concealed loaded mag somewhere else (since the mag *could* considered part of the pistol for "concealed" purposes.

Anyone feeling ballsy?

Yeah, not quite the Clark situation. Wouldn't the magazine be constantly falling out?

Maybe a gun manufacturer will market the Clark CA Special Grip Magazine Retainer that holds the magazine in its non-seated position.

I too have thought about this before.

[Blackwater OPS]

Actually that would be cool, like a little clip that would retain the mag, but prevent it from being fully seated, yet could be removed very quickly as you draw.

[Telperion]

How do you plan on making sure the mag is not "accidentally" seated during your arrest and the pistol's subsequent trip to the evidence locker?

[Blackwater OPS]

How do you plan on making sure the mag is not "accidentally" seated during your arrest and the pistol's subsequent trip to the evidence locker?

Personally, at this stage, I would not open carry unless it was on video (friend with HD camcorder) the whole time. I also am willing to give MP PD the benefit of the doubt in that I hope they would not stoop to false imprisonment, tampering with evidence and perjury. LAPD and LASD do not get the same benefit.

Anyway, I'm sure I could make a small spring clip that would do the job, probably in some highly visible neon color.

[hoffmang]

I think you'd find that the "common sense" logic in Clark would allow a conviction if the loaded magazine was in the mag well. Unseated means your a slap by a LEO away from being a felon - even if the LEO's slap is unintentional.

-Gene

[tyrist]

It's a grey area and you risk your magazine being accidently seated. It's not worth it. You might be convicted you might not.

[Shotgun Man]

Actually that would be cool, like a little clip that would retain the mag, but prevent it from being fully seated, yet could be removed very quickly as you draw.

You could have the retaining device biometrically activated (notice no hyphen; see the thread pertaining to the grammar on the AW Flowchart) to lessen the chance of an accidental seating of the magazine.

[Liberty1]

Pay off your current LDF then we can talk about your next experience in County.:p If you want to be helpful actually violate 12031 in the Fresno area and challenge it on 2A grounds and in about 5 years your name could be up in lights at the Supreme Court and almost as famous as Heller's!

And if the the pistol is reg. to you or you use a long gun, you'd only really get a fine (I'd bet) for a first offense. Heck, I could write you the ticket, and you wouldn't even need to get booked! (just don't sue me when the arrest is found to be unconstitutional:))

12031(a) (2) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is
punishable, as follows:
(A) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony,
or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, as a felony.
(B) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had
reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.
(C) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street
gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the
Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.

(D) Where the person is not in lawful possession of the firearm,
as defined in this section, or is within a class of persons
prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Section
12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code, as a felony.
(E) Where the person has been convicted of a crime against a
person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(F) Where the person is not listed with the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 11106, as the registered owner of the pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person, by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(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.

[BlueOvalBruin]

What would be the legality of having a pistol with an unloaded mag in the magwell (also no round in chamber) and having 2 loaded mags in pouches on your belt? Neither pistol nor mags are concealed of course.

[Liberty1]

Well, the loaded mag in the mag well in a "loose" or "wedged" manner would be easily interpreted as "attached to the firearm in any manner" and 12031 would stick. In a mag pouch the loaded mag is not attached to the firearm so no loaded violation.

I miss read your question. That is fine. No crime provided that you are otherwise not prohibited from possession, member of a street gang, or engaged in a felony. Read: http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf

[FastFinger]

If the issue is a question of when the magazine is seated, perhaps a specialized magazine well extension could have some sort of witness/tamper marker. Say a small, simple, glass or plastic vial, one that upon the magazine going past a failsafe point would crush and release a visible or non visible but detectable dye.

That wouldn't offer much protection against a LEO who is willing to break the seal, and the law, with the purposeful intent to frame an innocent owner. But then again if they're willing to do that they could pretty much frame you even if the magazine was in separate container.

[FreshTapCoke]

Open carry in California requires you to retain your concealable firearm in a belt holster. Ideally, the only time you will be withdrawing your firearm outside of your home or place of business will be when you need it loaded. (ideally, you will never need to) Therefore the proposed mechanism only needs to keep the magazine separated from the firearm while in the holster.

After reviewing the language of the Clark decision, it seemed to me like it would be possible to make a holster that functioned to maintain a wedge between the magazine and pistol to keep it from fully seating. The holster would have a catch for the magazine when the pistol was fully seated, and a sloped ramping section beyond that so drawing the pistol would naturally force the magazine to seat.


I have purchased a nylon holster for my Beretta and am trying to knock out a mock up. Finding the proper material with the right mix of rigidity and compliance has not been successful. I was hoping to at least get a rough model ready before unleashing the legal minds on this board upon it. =D

[MudCamper]

Wow that's amazing! Do you give out lotto numbers as well? :rolleyes: That's quite a bit of speculation considering no law is being broken. I find that last bit kinda ironic also, is exercising my rights worth losing them?!?

No need to be sarcastic. I am just offering you my opinion. I'd wager a lot of money that I am correct. It is not worth the risk, IMO. And to anyone who doesn't want a conviction on their record, I'd advise against this. And I'm the guy who has been arguing for Open Carry (http://www.paul.net/guns/CaliforniaOpenCarry.pdf) all along in these forums.

[Piper]

Here's my thoughts on open carry. If as much effort was put into getting these unconstitutional laws repealed as there is at trying to get around them, this would not be an issue. If we put nearly as much effort into getting the truth out as the anti's are in putting out propaganda and disinformation, this would not be an issue. If we spent more time on the offensive by showing friends and family and the hoplophobes we know that shooting can be fun and recreational, this would not be an issue. If we fired one at a time every antigun politician in this state and replaced them with progun representatives, this would not be an issue. So, instead of "getting around the law", why don't we just concentrate on eliminating the law.

SCOIUS will remove one very important weapon from the anti's arsenal by ruling that the 2A IS an individual right. That's one HUGE thing that they can't use against us. In my not so humble opinion, we need to start now and "GIT R DONE". That's pretty much all I have to say about this.

[GuyW]

Here's my thoughts on open carry. If as much effort was put into getting these unconstitutional laws repealed as there is at trying to get around them....So, instead of "getting around the law", why don't we just concentrate on eliminating the law.


CalGuns OLL experience seems to contradict this point of view....

[Glock22Fan]

Open carry in California requires you to retain your concealable firearm in a belt holster.

No, probably not. Open Carry requires the firearm to be carried in a totally visible manner. The Belt Holster clause is an example of what is considered to be Open Carry, like the militia clause in the 2nd, it is NOT an exclusive clause. PROVIDING there are no outer garments, a shoulder holster, thigh holster or whatever should be acceptable.

This has already been proven for knives in California (there is a similar clause in the knife laws). The only possible problem that I see is that the holster does obscure part of the firearm, which could make it concealed under other clauses. One would argue that if this concealment is not an issue for belt holsters, then it shouldn't be for shoulder holsters (consistency).

Anyone want to be a test case?

[Liberty1]

After reviewing the language of the Clark decision,

Are you thinking of the "in a position to fire" language? So if it is in the well but not in a position to fire then it is not loaded? OOOOOH that is splitting a fine hair! I like your line of thought. Interesting but I'd pass as that crosses the line I'm comfortable with. I still like it from a technical legal reading pov. It would be begging for Clark to be revisited in the courts though.

[uclaplinker]

CalGuns OLL experience seems to contradict this point of view....

+1

Asserting the current rights and following the law to the FULLEST EXTENT is often the quickest way to obtain additional rights.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with this, as Gene said, the way I read Clark is that a gun is loaded under the normal view of loaded. I'd consider a gun "loaded" with a magazine in the magwell, regardless of seated properly. Sure it won't function, but it has rounds contained within the gun, that's what makes me leery.

I've thought about this a while... if you want the ultimate carry piece... A P7M8 releases the slide on cocking. If you kept it holstered with the slide locked back, it would be EXTREMELY fast, to draw, seat a mag, release slide/chamber/cock.

[Piper]

CalGuns OLL experience seems to contradict this point of view....

And so you're satisfied with 10 round magazines and bullet buttons. I'm not, I want it all. My 2A freedoms are mine and I'm not willing to compromise and settle. Unfortunately some are.

[GuyW]

And so you're satisfied with 10 round magazines and bullet buttons. I'm not, I want it all. My 2A freedoms are mine and I'm not willing to compromise and settle. Unfortunately some are.

No.

Who knows where the OLL situation will lead?

This isn't a compromise, it's an incremental advancement in the (pasty) face of government bureaucrats who hate guns...

[Piper]

No.

Who knows where the OLL situation will lead?

This isn't a compromise, it's an incremental advancement in the (pasty) face of government bureaucrats who hate guns...

Let's see, we compromise by accepting the scraps of defeat that government has missed and call it a victory. We go on the defensive and call that a victory. It sounds like one step forward and two steps backward to me.

[hoffmang]

Piper,

All wins are losses? Love that logic there...

Carry on.

-Gene

[Ironchef]

Ok, I guess I'm confused by BWO's OP. I see that he'd like to carry a loaded mag "nearly" locked in the magwell of his semi-auto, openly carried, holstered handgun based loosely or directly on his understanding of Clark.

My confusion would be in the form of asking "Why would you want to do that when you can have a mag on your belt?"

I think I'm assuming he wants it in the magwell so as to more readily be able to draw and fire in the event his life is in danger of great bodily harm...etc, etc. But logistically, I can't imagine him "one handing" the mag into the locked position while the pistol is still in his holster, then drawing the loaded (yet unchambered) handgun, racking the slide to load a round and being able to go...and being faster than drawing with right hand, loading and racking with left hand from a mag on the belt?

Is this what you mean BWO? You think it'd be tactically better to run with a loose mag and be ready quicker than if you loaded and racked with your opposite hand?

[Piper]

Piper,

All wins are losses? Love that logic there...

Carry on.

-Gene

Sure it's a loss if you're losing more than your winning.

Here's an easy analogy. If you're in a boat with a hole in it and you're bailing with a pail like crazy, but the hole in the boat is letting more water in than you can bail out, are you keeping the boat afloat ? No, the boat is just sinking a little slower. And that's where we are right now. The anti's keep creating more laws and we celebrate the tiny "victories" the we manage to get. One step forward and two steps back.

[FreshTapCoke]

I can't imagine him "one handing" the mag into the locked position while the pistol is still in his holster, then drawing the loaded (yet unchambered) handgun, racking the slide to load a round and being able to go...and being faster than drawing with right hand, loading and racking with left hand from a mag on the belt?


Think of a holster with an integrated saddle that secures your magazine one inch from the fully seated position. Above the saddle there's a slanted semi-rigid piece that is angled towards the butt of the handgun.

Now, imagine drawing the handgun out of the holster, the magazine being freed from the saddle, and the sloped protrusion forcing the magazine into the magwell.

Take the same system but use a handgun with the slide locked back. Now with one fluid draw and a manipulation of the slide stop, you have a loaded handgun ready for defense.

[hoffmang]

Sure it's a loss if you're losing more than your winning.

Here's an easy analogy. If you're in a boat with a hole in it and you're bailing with a pail like crazy, but the hole in the boat is letting more water in than you can bail out, are you keeping the boat afloat ? No, the boat is just sinking a little slower. And that's where we are right now. The anti's keep creating more laws and we celebrate the tiny "victories" the we manage to get. One step forward and two steps back.

While your boat sinks my safe gets more crowded. I though the idea was to keep and bear and I'm keeping a whole lot more than I was in 2005.

I guess you get up and down confused too.

-Gene

[Piper]

While your boat sinks my safe gets more crowded. I though the idea was to keep and bear and I'm keeping a whole lot more than I was in 2005.

I guess you get up and down confused too.

-Gene

Keeping in general is not the current issue, what's at issue is the type that the government "permits" us to keep and the draconian restrictions on bearing. In case you havn't noticed, municipalities, counties and the state are slowly trying to eliminate places where we can go and bear arms such as closing down ranges and places like the Cow Palace. That also includes stupid laws like restricting hunting and shooting areas to leadless ammo in the name of wildlife protection and conservation. But I guess we're winning, if you say so.

[Blackwater OPS]

:threadjacked:


This makes perfect sense to me, add a thumb release snap and you have something obviously legal but practical for self defense. Even if you had to slap up on the bottom of the mag after drawing it would be better than a mag somewhere else. It might be possible to design the holster so that the pistol would not fit the holster if the mag were seated.

Think of a holster with an integrated saddle that secures your magazine one inch from the fully seated position. Above the saddle there's a slanted semi-rigid piece that is angled towards the butt of the handgun.

Now, imagine drawing the handgun out of the holster, the magazine being freed from the saddle, and the sloped protrusion forcing the magazine into the magwell.

Take the same system but use a handgun with the slide locked back. Now with one fluid draw and a manipulation of the slide stop, you have a loaded handgun ready for defense.

[hoffmang]

Let's review.

2005 - ARs, AKs, Fals, etc. now importable into California.
2006 - 2007 - FUD beat back. Compliance methods commercialized for rifles.
2007 - CCW groundwork cases filed.
2008 - 3/18 we learn we have at least 5 Justices for the Second Amendment means something.
2008 - T minus (worst case) 93 days and counting till we get the Second Amendment back in California step 1.

Last I checked, winning isn't won. We're not in the locker room yet, but I like our scoreboard compared to the other side. The only set back we've had was the self inflicted Microstamping mess last year. Also, we have to start with keep so we can get to bear. If you don't think the other side doesn't understand that then you didn't read this part in Heller as they quite well understand the implications of the word "bear":

JUSTICE SOUTER: May I go back to another point, which is to the same point, and that is consistent with your emphasis on the people was your emphasis a moment ago on the distinction between keeping and bearing arms. The "keep" part sounds in your, in your mind at least, to speak of an individual right not necessarily limited by, by the exigencies of military service.

My question is, if that is correct and "keep" should be read as, in effect, an independent guarantee, then what is served by the phrase "and bear"? In other words, if the people can keep them and they have them there for use in the militia as well as to hunt deer, why do we -- why do we have to have a further reference in there to a right to bear as well as to keep arms? And my point is it sounds to me as though "keep and bear" forms one phrase rather than two. But I want to know what your answer is to that.

GENERAL CLEMENT: The way I would read it, Justice Souter, is that "keep" is really talking about private possession in the home. And the way that I would look at it is in order to exercise, for example, an opportunity to hunt, that you would need to bear the arms as well. And I would point you -- I think it's a useful point --


I'm playing to win, not to whine.

-Gene

[FreshTapCoke]

:threadjacked:
It might be possible to design the holster so that the pistol would not fit the holster if the mag were seated.

That's an excellent point. Given that the magazine protrudes for the grip like the 92fs as opposed to the 1911 style magazine well, it should be possible to accomplish this.



No, probably not. Open Carry requires the firearm to be carried in a totally visible manner. The Belt Holster clause is an example of what is considered to be Open Carry, like the militia clause in the 2nd, it is NOT an exclusive clause.

Ahh, thank you, you are right. The code doesn't say it is the only way to open carry. I have mistaken acceptability and actuality. :)

[uclaplinker]

:threadjacked:


This makes perfect sense to me, add a thumb release snap and you have something obviously legal but practical for self defense. Even if you had to slap up on the bottom of the mag after drawing it would be better than a mag somewhere else. It might be possible to design the holster so that the pistol would not fit the holster if the mag were seated.

I think this would run afoul of one of the definitions in Clark that's given as a definition of loaded: a stripper click with rounds in the stripper clip guide. You could take the magwell to be functionally equivalent.

I REALLY think this is pushing it, you WOULD get arrested and your odds of being convicted are way beyond infinitesimal. You're trying to push interpolated part, IMHO, of established case law definitions to allow for something that, in my mind, is loaded. It's trying to see how close to having a round chambered do you need to be until it's loaded.

If this were pushed it's likely the resultant law would be that any penetration into the firearm with a loaded mag is a loaded gun. I chose that word specifically as it's not far from the appropriate analogy.

My 1/5 of a dime.

[Piper]

Let's review.

2005 - ARs, AKs, Fals, etc. now importable into California.
2006 - 2007 - FUD beat back. Compliance methods commercialized for rifles.
2007 - CCW groundwork cases filed.
2008 - 3/18 we learn we have at least 5 Justices for the Second Amendment means something.
2008 - T minus (worst case) 93 days and counting till we get the Second Amendment back in California step 1.

Last I checked, winning isn't won. We're not in the locker room yet, but I like our scoreboard compared to the other side. The only set back we've had was the self inflicted Microstamping mess last year. Also, we have to start with keep so we can get to bear. If you don't think the other side doesn't understand that then you didn't read this part in Heller as they quite well understand the implications of the word "bear":


I'm playing to win, not to whine.

-Gene

I hope you don't think I'm whining. I'm just tired of hearing "It can't be done." If we're in such great shape, then why am I reading it can't be done because the California legislature is so antigun ? Is it because it really can't be done or is it because the amount of effort is more than anyone or any organization wants to put into it ?

[Liberty1]

you WOULD get arrested and your odds of being convicted are way beyond infinitesimal.

Matt is just having withdrawal from CJ (central jail). The homies, who named him "gunner", showed him a lot of respect. Matt said call me anything but "receiver"! :eek:

[RANGER295]

This is quite an interesting idea. While I am personally not willing to take the risk at this point, I have a great deal of respect for anyone that would.
You could modify the mag so that it had enough friction so that I would not fall out when you break leather. Possibly even some kind of strap or elastic type device that holds it in place by passing under it. Keeping it out could be obtained by a modified floor plate. Right now I am looking at a 1911 and mag that are sitting on my desk. If you were to have a spring on the top of the lip on the front of the floor plate and the front of the floor plate a little lower to allow the spring to compress when the mag was seated, the spring would hold the mag out, and you could just slap it and it would go home. They heavier the spring, the safer you are in terms of compliance/ accidentally putting the mag in.

[Paladin]

Disclaimer: I have NOT read the majority of the posts in this thread. Having said that, I will say what we need is some authoritative, legal advice re OC in CA (loaded and unloaded, just to be through).

A few weeks ago I went to: http://www.calgunlaws.com/ to see what they had to say about it. I was shocked to see that it is not even addressed. I sent T-M an email suggesting they look into it and post re it. They said they might. If more CGN'ers do the same, they'll see that there is both a need and a demand for that information.

From: http://trutanichmichel.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=45

E-mail:
Haydee Villegas
Office Manager
hvillegas@tmllp.com

[Blackwater OPS]

LOL, don't be sending them emails, I moderate that site. (yeah the Matt C on there is me). The site is undergoing a major overhaul right now after which there will be regular updates. What there will probably never be however, is legal advice of the kind you are requesting. First off, the law is very dynamic, it's all opinion. A lawyer can't say "this is absolutely legal" most of the time (and definitely not with stuff like this). He can only go over what laws might apply and what defenses he might present if you were charged with violating them. These would probably be tailored to the person in question, and would be the sort of thing you have to pay for. Calgunlaws.com is focused more on providing documents related to CA gun laws and relevant news items. Authoritative legal advice of the sort you are looking for is hard to come by, and even less likely to be free.

Disclaimer: I have NOT read the majority of the posts in this thread. Having said that, I will say what we need is some authoritative, legal advice re OC in CA (loaded and unloaded, just to be through).

A few weeks ago I went to: http://www.calgunlaws.com/ to see what they had to say about it. I was shocked to see that it is not even addressed. I sent T-M an email suggesting they look into it and post re it. They said they might. If more CGN'ers do the same, they'll see that there is both a need and a demand for that information.

From: http://trutanichmichel.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=45

E-mail:
Haydee Villegas
Office Manager
hvillegas@tmllp.com

[hoffmang]

I hope you don't think I'm whining. I'm just tired of hearing "It can't be done." If we're in such great shape, then why am I reading it can't be done because the California legislature is so antigun ? Is it because it really can't be done or is it because the amount of effort is more than anyone or any organization wants to put into it ?

Man we're threadjacking - sorry BWO.

There is a reason we have 3 part government. We can't make progress in the legislature but we've show we can make progress in the executive and very soon we'll make progress in the judiciary here. That's my point.

-Gene