what is a loaded shotgun?

[paul0660]

Riverman, where did you get that wackjob text of 12031(g)?

It actually says

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.

seriously, what did you cut and paste from?

EDIT: Ah, I get it, you should have highlighted "not limited to", since it includes infinite possibilities.

All of which were decided by Clarke.

[Riverman]

Riverman, where did you get that wackjob text of 12031(g)?

I made it up...

Kidding... I got it from "Summary of California Gun Laws and Basic Safety Rules" - a product of the CRPA Foundation

[prc77]

I made it up...

Kidding... I got it from "Summary of California Gun Laws and Basic Safety Rules" - a product of the CRPA Foundation

thats what my neighbor is stating his comments from also.

[paul0660]

CRPA has a very chicken little attitude about these things, seems to miss some obvious facts about it (evidently ignores this site), and is part of the problem, imo.

Good idea to state the source, thanks.

[BigDogatPlay]

Hard for CRPA to ignore this site since there are CRPA board members who are very active posters here.....

It goes back to interpretation, and pretty much everyone seems to have one about what constitutes loaded. Unless there is some new ground that can be broken by a LEO who can write well, People v. Clark is going to trump in the end. CRPA is, generally, going to counsel it's members to err on the side of caution. But having said that I am going to go open up my copy of their pamphlet that just arrived in the mail and interpret for myself.

[Tripper]

hmm, it would cost me 20 grand in attorney expenses, to make, how much? I guarantee, it would be the last time that officer or his/her department would make that mistake, Case Law is very specific, that issue has been in Training updates. 20grand would seem to be a very insignificant investment.
Remember that saying; ignorance of the law is no excuse, (it seems it should be even worse for an LEO to use that one in this matter, since it would be reasonable to expect it to be his/her responsibility to know that one) its no longer up to the LEO's 'opinion' on the matter. Unless your a felon, then proximaty(sp?) can be an issue.
Here's the link BTW.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Defining_loaded_in_California#People_v._Clark