Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 11-12-2012, 8:58 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by carrywisely_ca View Post
My understanding of the charged magazine is that considering it a crime is up to the officer who stops you. The law that the employee was referring to is an anti-gang law to help increase the conviction/retention rate among gang affiliated people (not sure what state/municipality it is from).


Law Officers cannot make law by notion or whim. Most CA officers are now aware of the Clark case law, largely through the efforts of CGF.


Quote:
Originally Posted by carrywisely_ca View Post
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/De..._in_California
Ammunition or Loaded Magazines in locked containers

Ammunition may be carried in the same container as the gun – loose ammunition or ammunition in ammo boxes does not make a gun loaded, because the ammunition is NOT “placed into a position from which it can be fired”.

You may transport loaded magazines and speed loaders, so long as they are not inserted into the magazine well or cylinder of the firearm. That does not make a gun loaded, because the ammunition carried that way is NOT “placed into a position from which it can be fired”.

A loaded magazine is not the same as a loaded weapon, and possession of a weapon and a loaded magazine for that weapon does not, necessarily, mean you have a loaded weapon.

Anyone who asserts something contrary to the above 3 points is simply wrong. That does not mean you cannot be arrested by uninformed or badly trained law enforcement officer, or charged with the crime of carrying a loaded weapon by an uninformed or politically motivated prosecutor. It does mean that, if it goes to court and you have good representation, the prosecution should lose on the law. There are certain exceptions to this outlined below.

Your comfort level may lead you to do more than the law requires. Please also see Transport Restriction for Handguns for some important additional notes on transporting handguns in California.
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-14-2012, 6:56 PM
jeff762 jeff762 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 282
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hornswaggled View Post
So cal was just open like 6 weeks ago, what happed?
i believe the owner retired.
__________________
i'm not a gun nut! i'm a firearms enthusiast!

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napoleon Bonaparte

"Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning." (Colonel David M. Shoup, USMC, Tarawa, 21 November 1943.)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 11-14-2012, 7:06 PM
Toolfreak66's Avatar
Toolfreak66 Toolfreak66 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NORWALK, CA
Posts: 1,395
iTrader: 138 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moto View Post
I don't know who I've heard more fud from, gun shop employees or police officers? Hmmmmmm
Hahahaha...its so true
__________________
A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 11-15-2012, 3:00 PM
motorhead's Avatar
motorhead motorhead is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: DAGO
Posts: 3,411
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

my experience has been, if it wasn't purchased from them, it's probably illegal. DGM is a bottomless pit of FUD.
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic15146_2.gif Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 11-15-2012, 3:27 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 4,048
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meplat1 View Post
Law Officers cannot make law by notion or whim. Most CA officers are now aware of the Clark case law, largely through the efforts of CGF.
People v Clark has been pretty well briefed through my own agency and most other agencies that I am aware of.

It is important to note that the DGM employee's statement is not complete FUD. There is a small amount of truth to it.

There are two instances where the Penal Code defines a weapon as being loaded when the weapon and ammunition are in simply in the possession of the same person. These sections were not addressed by the Clark decision. The first is where the weapon is being carried with the intent to commit a felony (see Post #29 for details). The second is where a firearm is carried into designated buildings (refer to Penal Code section 171e).
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 11-16-2012, 7:57 AM
Danz la Nuit Danz la Nuit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
People v Clark has been pretty well briefed through my own agency and most other agencies that I am aware of.

It is important to note that the DGM employee's statement is not complete FUD. There is a small amount of truth to it.

There are two instances where the Penal Code defines a weapon as being loaded when the weapon and ammunition are in simply in the possession of the same person. These sections were not addressed by the Clark decision. The first is where the weapon is being carried with the intent to commit a felony (see Post #29 for details). The second is where a firearm is carried into designated buildings (refer to Penal Code section 171e).
oy vei
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 11-16-2012, 10:46 AM
a1c's Avatar
a1c a1c is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 8,874
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Sounds like the staff's knowledge has been discounted as well.
__________________
WTB: French & Finnish firearms. WTS: raw honey, tumbled .45 ACP brass, stupid cat.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 11-16-2012, 11:16 AM
Ninety's Avatar
Ninety Ninety is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: OC , AZ
Posts: 3,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
Your observations are evidence that Our Gun laws are not rational. Everyone has heard the maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That fundamental principle was valid when our laws were based on the common sense understanding of right and wrong. Many of the current California gun laws are based on irrational emotion, and a policy to discourage the public from engaging in activities involving firearms. Consequently, it is completely understandable that people who should know the law, don't have a complete understanding of it. This is why I do not get angry at a law enforcement officer or gun store employee that has a misunderstanding of the law.
edited ... and might just steal it.. Beautifully said.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.