[Richie Rich]

Might be a dumb question but I don't want to find out the hard way that I am wrong..

My girlfriend has a range bag for her .380. The bag has an inner compartment with a zipper that has a provision for a lock. It also has two outer compartments, one is divided to carry magazines and the other for misc (boxed rounds, eyes and ears, etc...).

With the firearm unloaded and locked in the center zippered compartment is it legal to transport the bag to and from the range with ammo loaded into the mags, stored in the outer compartments?

[blkA4alb]

Yes it is legal.

[Richie Rich]

Thought so, just wanted to make sure the loaded mag and ammo storage met the definition of the law as it pertains to seperate.

I had up until a few weeks ago never owned a handgun and none of my rifle/shotgun cases had any provisions for storage of ammo. I always just carried my rounds in a milsurp ammo can...

[Crazed_SS]

definition of the law as it pertains to seperate

I know there has been pages and pages of discussion on this.... but IIRC, nowhere does the law saw the ammo must be seperate; the gun just needs to be unloaded.

[Inoxmark]

This situation is somewhat a gray area of the law which says:

A firearm is deemed loaded when there is a live cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm.

So, the magazines are specifically named. Some might argue that said magazine must be "attached" to the firearm, others will argue that the above sentence is a proof that magazine is considered to be a part of a firearm, therefore must not be loaded. In the end it's your call anyway.
Myself, I don't see any appeal or any real time savings in arriving to the range with 2-3 loaded mags, I keep ammunition in boxes and only load mags at the bench.

This is from the CHPs Website at: http://www.chp.ca.gov/html/answers.html#01

"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."

I recommend the "How to own a gun and stay out of jail" book. The only point where the author is fuzzy is on loaded magazines. They are defiantly bad if you are a gang member.

[chiefcrash]

the range bag should be ok. i will say that the range bag will *NOT* be okay to take on an airplane. for airplanes, you need a HARD locked container...

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by Richie Rich

With the firearm unloaded and locked in the center zippered compartment is it legal to transport the bag to and from the range with ammo loaded into the mags, stored in the outer compartments?

Many law enforcement agencies and district attorneys consider the magazine to be part of the gun, even if it isn't IN the gun. Therefore, loaded mags in the car is the same as a loaded gun in their eyes. Just an FYI.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

This point has been addressed numerous times on this forum. If anyone is looking for a more in depth look I suggest finding them through a search.

The short answer is its completely legal to have a loaded magazine as long as as its not in the gun. Its not a grey area, there is case law that addresses this specifically.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree

This point has been addressed numerous times on this forum. If anyone is looking for a more in depth look I suggest finding them through a search.

The short answer is its completely legal to have a loaded magazine as long as as its not in the gun. Its not a grey area, there is case law that addresses this specifically.

So you can rest assured that you will be acquitted of all charges. That will make it easier when you have to sign the check for your attorney's fees.

Me...mine are unloaded. I don't like paying attorney fees if I don't have to.

I know I'm being a smartass, but I also figure that unless you have a CCW (which makes this a non-issue anyway), there is no compelling reason that you need to have loaded mags. So why risk the trouble? (I doubt that Al Sharpton and/or the ACLU will come charging to my defense if the Alameda County D.A. unfairly files concealed weapons charges against me because I had loaded mags).

Best,

Jim

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Originally Posted by Gryff

So you can rest assured that you will be acquitted of all charges. That will make it easier when you have to sign the check for your attorney's fees.

Me...mine are unloaded. I don't like paying attorney fees if I don't have to.

I know I'm being a smartass, but I also figure that unless you have a CCW (which makes this a non-issue anyway), there is no compelling reason that you need to have loaded mags. So why risk the trouble? (I doubt that Al Sharpton and/or the ACLU will come charging to my defense if the Alameda County D.A. unfairly files concealed weapons charges against me because I had loaded mags).

Best,

Jim

Of course you are completely entitled to transport your guns any way you wish. The question at hand dealt with the legality of transportation. The law is quite clear on this and I'm surprised you think a lawyer would be needed to defend you for doing something legal.

In regards to a compelling reason...well, again, that is a something each of us has to decide for ourselves. Personally, there are ocassions where having a gun within reach, even if it takes me a few extra seconds to unlock and load, would help put my mind at ease a bit.

[artherd]

dear god not this again

Originally Posted by Gryff

Many law enforcement agencies and district attorneys consider the magazine to be part of the gun, even if it isn't IN the gun. Therefore, loaded mags in the car is the same as a loaded gun. Just an FYI.

While many 'law enforcement agencies' have infact been improperly trained on this matter, the facts and case law are clear, loaded mag outside the gun does not constitute a loaded firearm; see people v clark.
The law on the matter is settled and clear. There can be no argument, and illegal training and threat of unlawful arrests will not change that.

[artherd]

While everyone is free and wise to choose their level of risk of arrest, passing off fear as law is factual hiprocracy.

Originally Posted by Gryff

So you can rest assured that you will be acquitted of all charges. That will make it easier when you have to sign the check for your attorney's fees.

Me...mine are unloaded. I don't like paying attorney fees if I don't have to.

I know I'm being a smartass, but I also figure that unless you have a CCW (which makes this a non-issue anyway), there is no compelling reason that you need to have loaded mags. So why risk the trouble? (I doubt that Al Sharpton and/or the ACLU will come charging to my defense if the Alameda County D.A. unfairly files concealed weapons charges against me because I had loaded mags).

Best,

Jim

Perhaps you should just stay home.

[Blackwater OPS]

Pretty much this has been hashed out, the fact is it's probably legal, that would be my stand at this point. BUT, numerous LE agencies are absolutly training officers to think that it's illegal. So you may get arrested, if it's in LA or SF, also probably charged, and chances are you will win in court. It's probably about the same risk you take owning an OLL.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by artherd

While everyone is free and wise to choose their level of risk of arrest, passing off fear as law is factual hiprocracy.

Perhaps you should just stay home.

Can you read? I never quoted the law, unlike you.

I just proposed a version of "It doesn't make any sense to piss into the wind." I didn't think some troll would give me a proctology exam for it.

Gyff - I just connected the dots. We sat is the same classroom yesterday. Some background on Artherd. He is a stand up guy who has had his share of fights with the law over completely legal activity. His not a troll but rather a guy with strong views. Nothing wrong with that.

Here is my 10c.I see changing my behavior because poorly trained law enforcement from an anti gun department might hassle me for doing something completely legal as pretty much the same as not going to the mall for fear of terrorist attack. Why bother to pass laws when you can just scare the plebeians into submission?

It is really important to get you straight on what the law says as you have a leadership position in the shooting sports. Here is an example, I just put my wife through a basic handgun course where the instructor claimed that even having ammunition in the same bag as your gun was illegal. She believes that instructor over me as he holds a position.

Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree

The law is quite clear on this and I'm surprised you think a lawyer would be needed to defend you for doing something legal..

Gryff has a point. You might have to spend some $$. I can see you hiring a laywer to get out, paying some bail bondsman, and hiring another lawyer to get the charges dropped. While I agree it is legal, you've got to be prepared to drop some $$. To me it is worth it but I won't criticize someone who will only carry empty mags.

[Timberwolf]

Here's my .02 worth regarding loaded vs unloaded mags outside the weapon, at least in LA and Orange counties, if you want to spend good money to pay a good law firm (one that understands gun owners rights) to defend you go ahead and have a loaded mag. in your vehicle, glove box, trunk or otherwise. If stopped and like a goof law abiding citizen you admit to it when asked or for some reason it is found, there's a very high probability you will be arrested, and charged. The charges will probably include carrying a concealed weapon to name a few.

Botton line why tempt fate, keep the mag unloaded as testing legal theory and case law gets expensive, ie - the law firms where my wife and I work charge a mid four figure retainer.

P.S. There's no guarantee of an acquittal either - wife's firm just handled a case with this as an issue and the poor chap got several (over a couple of years worth) months summary probation.

[brassburnz]

Among my shooting buddies, there are lawyers and police officers. Transportation of firearms, magazines, and ammo is a topic rehashed all the time, basically because someone comes up with a new incident involving the same.

Everyone (including the lawyers) agree with the police officers on this one, mainly because they make the initial decision:

Guns in locked container. (My softsided cases with the cheesy lock built into the zipper qualifies.)

Ammo separated from the firearm. Can be in the same bag, but different compartment. I carry my ammo in a separate bag because of weight considerations.

Magazines unloaded. In many southern California counties, the district attorneys looking to prosecute vehicle related gun crimes (road rage shootings, drive-bys, etc.) use a legal fiction called "constructive possession" to make a loaded magazine equate to a loaded firearm.

I have been told that arrests have been made when police officers find a loaded or partially loaded magazine during a vehicle stop, even without finding a firearm. Their argument is, the gun was tossed before the stop.

A good attorney can use the law as written as a defense, but a good D.A. will say that law doesn't apply to the facts of the current case.

Even if you are found not guilty, you will still have an arrest record for a gun related incident. For someone with as established career, this may not matter. But the next time you fill out a job application, and it asks about arrests (it may not ask if you were convicted or not), you'll need to list it.

As a result, all my buddies, except the police officers of course, transport empty mags and a bunch of sissy loader/mag loading devices.

Randy
NRA Life Member

[dawson8r]

When I get a chance to go shooting I generally shoot both handguns and my evil black rifle so I bring a lot of ammo. I slap a little zipper lock on my Glock range bag and I have a lockable ammo can where I keep ammo. If I made the time to pre-load some magazines then I throw them into the ammo can. Summary: handgun in locked container, loaded mags and ammo in a separate locked container. The only fault I see in this is all the fumbling with keys and locks I'd have to do if I found myself in an emergency situation.

[FreedomIsNotFree]

It amazes me, at times, to see people so scared to follow the law. Everyone has the choice to carry/transport their guns in any manner which makes them feel "safe", but for anyone to act as though you are going to have to get a lawyer...etc. etc. is ridiculous at this point....it also makes me wonder how much you know of the "system" and how it works.

If a cop was stupid enough fto say he was going to arrest you, quote the law, 12025/12031, and tell him to touch base with his supervisor or they are going to have a lawsuit on their hands.

If that did not work I can guarantee you that NO DA will ever file charges in a case such as this.

So all this talk about needing a lawyer and whatnot is nonsense. Again, people are free to transport in any way they feel most safe...I would never try to convince someone otherwise, but to throw around unfounded scare tactics goes against the accuracy with laws we enjoy here at CalGuns.net.

Oh and Gryff....you might want to hand out here a bit more before you start throwing around personal attacks.

[Timberwolf]

My friend what I've seen written here are not unfounded scare tactics or scenarios, quite the contrary . . . you want to test your theories and convictions go right ahead, in the least it'll cost you a lot of headache and money and when the day is done you've proven nothing.

That said we as responsible gun owners should take steps necessary to change the laws or their methods of enforcement that we think unfair, not purposefully push the envelope on the enforcement level. That does very little to support our position and only bolsters our opposition's stance.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree

So all this talk about needing a lawyer and whatnot is nonsense. Again, people are free to transport in any way they feel most safe...I would never try to convince someone otherwise, but to throw around unfounded scare tactics goes against the accuracy with laws we enjoy here at CalGuns.net.

Oh and Gryff....you might want to hand out here a bit more before you start throwing around personal attacks.

So you're saying that because you are part of some old-boy network here, you are entitled to announce to all that I am full of crap, resorting to scare tactics, and that I should 'just stay home'?"

I was trying to help by offering an opinion. Sorry if I forgot to submit 800 other posts before earning the right to do so. And it's good to know that when I am one of the old timers here, I can insult other posters who make an effort to dare to embrace reality rather than raw legal theory.

It's good to know that you are here to browbeat "uneducated" people like me Initially, I thought you were a legally correct but tactifully disabled moron. My mistake. I'll make sure I post lots of other messages before I assert that you actually are.

Gryff

[Blue Helmet On]

I normally just sit back and ignore it when two people get into it here. I think this is worth putting on the blue helmet and stepping into the middle knowing that my balls might get blown off and nobody will care:-))

I've never met FreedomIsNotFree but enjoy his opinions and benefit from his knowledge here.

I know Gryff and found him to be a really welcoming guy when I first stepped onto his range and enjoy shooting with him. We need guys like him making sure that people get a good first impression of the shooting sports.

I can see this conflict from both sides and really encourage you Gents to hit the "F*** It" button and agree to just misunderstanding and take your frustrations out on the State Assembly for passing such crap laws here.

I hope Gryff sticks around. He has the energy to fight for our gun rights and will benefit like I've done from learning the legal intricacies of California. It will be a win win.

[Blue Helmet Off]

[Blackwater OPS]

They are both right. On the one hand, there is nothing really illegal about carrying loaded mags. On the other hand, it should be made known to noobs and others that doing so may put so at a slightly higher risk of arrest should they be discovered by law enforcement.

To just say, "it's legal and if you don't do it you are a coward", is BS, but so is saying, "it's gonna get you arrested, and if you do it you are an idiot".

[FreedomIsNotFree]

Originally Posted by Gryff

So you're saying that because you are part of some old-boy network here, you are entitled to announce to all that I am full of crap, resorting to scare tactics, and that I should 'just stay home'?"

I was trying to help by offering an opinion. Sorry if I forgot to submit 800 other posts before earning the right to do so. And it's good to know that when I am one of the old timers here, I can insult other posters who make an effort to dare to embrace reality rather than raw legal theory.

It's good to know that you are here to browbeat "uneducated" people like me Initially, I thought you were a legally correct but tactifully disabled moron. My mistake. I'll make sure I post lots of other messages before I assert that you actually are.

Gryff

You have to be one of the most defensive people I have seen on this forum so far. You have completely misconstrued what I have said in order to make a point which is not related to the issue at hand.

Lets go over this point by point so there is no confusion.

So you're saying that because you are part of some old-boy network here, you are entitled to announce to all that I am full of crap, resorting to scare tactics, and that I should 'just stay home'?"

NO, I am not part of any old-boy network, no I did not say you are full of crap and no, I did not say "just stay home".

What I did say is the law is clear on this issue and for you to tell people they are going to face stiff legal bills if they have loaded mags is inaccurate.

Here is the actual quote from my previous post...

It amazes me, at times, to see people so scared to follow the law. Everyone has the choice to carry/transport their guns in any manner which makes them feel "safe", but for anyone to act as though you are going to have to get a lawyer...etc. etc. is ridiculous at this point....it also makes me wonder how much you know of the "system" and how it works.

Please show me where I said anything about you being full of crap or to stay home.

you then said...

I was trying to help by offering an opinion. Sorry if I forgot to submit 800 other posts before earning the right to do so. And it's good to know that when I am one of the old timers here, I can insult other posters who make an effort to dare to embrace reality rather than raw legal theory.

We are all here because we share something in common...that is gun ownership. Much of what we share is our personal experiences and opinion. My issue with what you said was that you made it sound as if the law did not matter...as if the uneducated opinion of a LEO trumps the law. It doesn't. I tried to explain why without getting personal in any fashion.
The number of posts you have here is of no consequence to me. Its the thought, research and clarity of an opinion that is of interest to me...and having hundreds or thousands of posts does not mean one opinion is superior to another.

The case that was quoted, People v. Clark, is not raw legal theory. Its based on a case that has worked its way through the system to a point where the court of appeals made a decision on the law. Their job is to clarify these issues. Precedence set by the CA court of appeals MUST be adhered to by lower courts in CA...thats simply the law and not up for debate.

More than once in this thread I said people are entitled to carry/transport their guns in any manner which makes them feel most safe and that I would never try to convince someone otherwise. What I took issue with was your unequivocal answer that it would likely cost somebody thousands of dollars to fight such a case...that is not accurate.

It's good to know that you are here to browbeat "uneducated" people like me Initially, I thought you were a legally correct but tactifully disabled moron. My mistake. I'll make sure I post lots of other messages before I assert that you actually are.

You sure are a sensitive one....but what do I know....I'm a moron....

[artherd]

People v. Clark is not 'raw legal theroey'; rather it is case law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

Mr Gryff seems to take an alltogether not unwarranted defeatist attitude towards the improper (bordering on illegal) training many LEOs do recieve on the matter.

I choose to excercise my legal right to (amoungst others) walk down the street, own an OLL based rifle, drive a muscle car, carry a pistol in a locking container with a loaded mag right next to it, and operate a business.

All of the above are legal period.

All of the above can get you sued or illegally charged with a crime.

Sitting alone shaking with fear inside your own house for your entire natural born life can still get you sued/charged too. It's all a matter of degrees.

Now maybe if some of us law abiding citizens grew some backbone; we would see incorrect LEO training changed, we would see a government that respected and feared it's people as it should by design. and we could all taste true liberty a little more often.

I am tired of living like a mouse. I will not do so any longer. Are there consequences? Sure! Ask the ~$50k worth lowers CA DOJ stole and still has. Do I particularily care? Not enough to stop living my life.

[brassburnz]

First of all, I like to say I have nothing but respect for artherd. I've got three OLL thanks to his efforts and the effort and others.

I just finished reading People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99. If this is the same case artherd is using to support his argument a loaded mag next to a gun isn't a "loaded gun," it doesn't do a very good job.

Clark is about a single shot shotgun. A magazine is not involved. The shotgun had a place to store shells in the stock and three were stored there. The DA said the shotgun was loaded because the shells "were attached to the gun." The court of appeals said if the meaning of loaded in this case was ambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

The case doesn't even mention magazines, magazine fed firearms, or handguns at all. It does talk about a 1977 case, People v Heffner, but I can't access it, so there might be more language in that case to support artherd, but I can't read it.

It's late, so I'm hitting the submit button.

Randy
NRA Life Member

Originally Posted by artherd

People v. Clark is not 'raw legal theroey'; rather it is case law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

Mr Gryff seems to take an alltogether not unwarranted defeatist attitude towards the improper (bordering on illegal) training many LEOs do recieve on the matter.

I choose to excercise my legal right to (amoungst others) walk down the street, own an OLL based rifle, drive a muscle car, carry a pistol in a locking container with a loaded mag right next to it, and operate a business.

All of the above are legal period.

All of the above can get you sued or illegally charged with a crime.

Sitting alone shaking with fear inside your own house for your entire natural born life can still get you sued/charged too. It's all a matter of degrees.

Now maybe if some of us law abiding citizens grew some backbone; we would see incorrect LEO training changed, we would see a government that respected and feared it's people as it should by design. and we could all taste true liberty a little more often.

I am tired of living like a mouse. I will not do so any longer. Are there consequences? Sure! Ask the ~$50k worth lowers CA DOJ stole and still has. Do I particularily care? Not enough to stop living my life.

[Gryff]

Originally Posted by FreedomIsNotFree

NO, I am not part of any old-boy network, no I did not say you are full of crap and no, I did not say "just stay home".

What I did say is the law is clear on this issue and for you to tell people they are going to face stiff legal bills if they have loaded mags is inaccurate.

Mea culpa. I was being defensive, and I assumed that FreedomIsNotFree was the original person who belittled my warning. It was actually ArtHerd who suggested I "stay home" because I don't think loaded mags are worth big legal bills.

I should have been more careful before throwing that response out. It was irresponsible and I apologize to FreedomIsNotFree.

I do disagree with you on the legal bills issue, though. A government can charge you with whatever they want, and they will not reimburse you for your legal expenses. If you are lucky, the grand jury or the judge will throw it out quickly. But if not, and if you don't qualify for a public defender, then you will need a lawyer whether you are illegally charged or not. And that lawyer has to be paid.

And I know enough cops that quoting the law to one who thinks you're committing a felony has a so-so chance, at best, of working. Most cops err on the side of public-safety caution rather than civil-liberties caution. They figure that D.A. can figure it all out.

My point to all of this was, legally entitled or not, pre-loading mags before going to the range has caused legal problems for some individuals. The practical benefits of having the pre-loaded mags does not outweigh the potential hassle, in my mind, so I was posting that thought for consideration.

Artherd implies that I don't have a spine because of this attitude. I just figure that without deep pockets, a person needs to pick their battles.

But, again, I publicly and sincerely apologize to FreedomIsNotFree. I have an emotional reaction at "Internet courage," where someone says rude or callus things online that they would not dare to say to your face. And then it turns out that I am rude without cause. I am embarrassed at the irony.

Gryff

[FreedomIsNotFree]

No harm, no foul...

What we can agree on is each person needs to, individually, decide how they are going to transport/carry firearms.

For me, the law is clear and I have no problem at all having loaded mags as long as they are not in the gun. I think I would actually have fun representing myself in such a case if the situation should ever arise....but I'm also the guy that likes to go to court....

[M. Sage]

Originally Posted by brassburnz

First of all, I like to say I have nothing but respect for artherd. I've got three OLL thanks to his efforts and the effort and others.

I just finished reading People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99. If this is the same case artherd is using to support his argument a loaded mag next to a gun isn't a "loaded gun," it doesn't do a very good job.

Clark is about a single shot shotgun. A magazine is not involved. The shotgun had a place to store shells in the stock and three were stored there. The DA said the shotgun was loaded because the shells "were attached to the gun." The court of appeals said if the meaning of loaded in this case was ambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant.

The case doesn't even mention magazines, magazine fed firearms, or handguns at all. It does talk about a 1977 case, People v Heffner, but I can't access it, so there might be more language in that case to support artherd, but I can't read it.

It's late, so I'm hitting the submit button.

Randy
NRA Life Member

Yes, and no. Clark tells us is what "loaded" means. According to this case, it means what we all think of when we hear the word "loaded." It means "unexpended" (aka live) ammunition in gun and ready to fire. Shell carriers? Not loaded. Extra mags sitting in the bag? Not loaded. Yes, it's a single-shot shotgun, but loose shells are equivalent enough to a magazine for that firearm. I bet you can actually get a shell into it as fast as you can insert a mag and charge a semi-auto rifle... possibly faster.

I'll steal Hoffmang's thunder (and bandwidth).

The term "loaded" has a commonly understood meaning: "to put a load or charge in (a device or piece of equipment) a gun" or "to put a load on or in a carrier, device, or container; esp: to insert the charge or cartridge into the chamber of a firearm." (Webster's New Collegiate Dict. (1976) p. 674.) Under the commonly understood meaning of the term "loaded," a firearm is "loaded" when a shell or cartridge has been placed into a position from which it can be fired; the shotgun is not "loaded" if the shell or cartridge is stored elsewhere and not yet placed in a firing position. The shells here were placed in a separate storage compartment of the shotgun and were not yet "loaded" as the term is commonly understood.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Peo...ark-(1996).pdf

I transport with at least one loaded magazine or clip (depending on what I've got with me.) For "safety" sake, I pop an empty mag into my pistol, if it's that. Otherwise, I don't worry about it much. Maybe a rifle mag or clip in my backpack, with the rifle in the case. I'm not too worried about it. Mainly, I keep the live ammo out of my rifle cases because I don't want a round "accidentally" falling in if the police check.

Wonder how "loaded" would work with the bolt removed from your bolt rifle. Oh, well. Don't want to have the bolt "accidentally" fall in place, either.

I've been told by an ex-LEO that it's "safe" to keep the loaded mag in the glovebox, though he got nervous about putting it inside the case with the pistol. I just put the empty in the pistol, lock the pistol in the case, and put the case into my range bag with my ammo and mags.

Then again, I am going past the letter of the law with my separation and empty mag in the well. So it does come down to personal comfort levels a bit. I'd rather not get hassled too badly, though I'm confident with the level I'm at that I won't end up wrongfully arrested. And that if I do, at least it'll be painfully obvious that it's wrongful.