No. That is the PC as it exists today, and as it was in 1996. The general way laws are interpreted is first the PC, and then case law, where the PC is enhanced, extended or explained by judicial application of the PC.
In this case, generally Clark has redefined 'loaded' from what the 'black letter' of 12031(g) says to the quoted version from the judge.
We have a similar situation regarding 'assault weapons'; the law at 12276 talks about 'AR-series' weapons, while the Harrot v County of Kings decision voids that language and replaces it.
The PC is not then amended to match the judicial ruling; that would take an explicit change by the Legislature, which they have not made.
If you look at hard-copy publications of PC, for example "West's", available in the reference section of some public libraries, there will be supplements to the text of the laws in 'pockets' inside the back covers of the volumes. Often these refer the reader to case law which modifies the meaning of some of the laws in application.
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.
There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.
Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.
The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.
Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.