re the DOJ letter, saying in part
Many jurisdictions in California are beginning to interpret the term "loaded firearm" to include a loaded magazine, or a person with ammunition on his or her person, in the same vehicle as an otherwise legally transported firearm for which that ammunition is designed. This is a matter of interpretation of state law by local jurisdictions, and as such a matter most appropriately addressed with the local district attorney's office.
I guess those 'many jurisdictions' might be misinterpreting 12025(b)
(b) Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:
(6) 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 fine and imprisonment if both of the following conditions are met:
(A) Both the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that firearm are either in the immediate possession of the person or readily accessible to that person, or the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is loaded as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 12031.
(B) The person is not listed with the Department of Justice
pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11106, as the registered owner of that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
by reading 'concealed' as 'concealable'. I would like to think a court would find that incorrect. I certainly do not know of any other statute that could even be warped into what Brent suggests 'many jurisdictions' may be doing, but that's one of the reasons one hires an attorney instead of an internet board poster.