Read calwiki and STILL confused about transporting pistol in trunk in socal

[JDay]

Your demeanor will determine the officer reaction. Majority of time, only a law breaker, criminal showed attitude that raised a red flag. If you're acting such an *** and hostile, you give impression to officer that you're potentially breaking the law. The officer will detain you to further investigate and made formal arrest if need to.

What you're talking about is known as contempt of cop. Also known as harassment.

[ARDude]

In a previous thread a while back I made similar statements that CSA made, but only referring to LAPD policy.
I was called out for spreading FUD.
If you are travelling thru LAPD area with an unloaded firearm and ammo in the same locked container, you MIGHT have a problem. That is their policy. Contact any LAPD officer at any division and see for yourself what they say.

[Librarian]

People V Clark proves that a firearm which only has live rounds in a storage container in or attached to the firearm is not legally "loaded" in CA. So, it is proving a negative. I'd love to find case law referencing that a loaded magazine outside of the magwell is similarly not "loaded" under CA law.

That would require that some prosecutor persisted in the error of his/her ways, or that a defendant had relatively ineffective counsel, and the case then be appealed to one of the six California Appellate courts who would have smacked that down.

Findlaw - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/summary/s...search2=Search - does not provide any such case. In fact, it returns just 5 cases on 12031, 2 cases on 25850 - it seems that charge does not often get up to the appeals level.

I'll suggest the language of Clark

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.

excludes ammunition in a magazine but not inserted in a magazine well - it is not possible to fire a round until it is chambered, and a magazine is not (functionally) anywhere near a chamber until it is inserted in the magazine well.

Clark refers to Heffner

In common usage there is no doubt that the Taser, upon insertion of the barbed contactors into the chambers from which they are expelled, is indeed loaded. "The loading of a gun simply affects the condition of the weapon by making it immediately useful for firing." (People v. Delong, 11 Cal.App.3d 786, 792 [90 Cal.Rptr. 193].)

It could be argued - but I don't think successfully - that even with a magazine and ammunition inserted in a mag well that gun is not loaded unless there might be a round chambered. That is, in fact, the Fish and Game Code definition, and I would expect a court to say the Legislature could have written a parallel definition into the Penal Code, and since they did not do that, that is not what they meant.

[JDay]

In a previous thread a while back I made similar statements that CSA made, but only referring to LAPD policy.
I was called out for spreading FUD.
If you are travelling thru LAPD area with an unloaded firearm and ammo in the same locked container, you MIGHT have a problem. That is their policy. Contact any LAPD officer at any division and see for yourself what they say.

See above.

LAPD does not write the law.

[sonofeugene]

I am not an expert, but this is what I do. I put the gun in one case and the mag in another. Lock them both.
You can also have a soft bag with two separate compartments, and lock them both with one lock, but as I understand it, the mag must be separate from the gun.

No, no, no.....the mags do NOT need to be kept separate from the gun. All that is required is that they mags not be in the gun. The mags can be fully loaded if you like.

This is the main thing: No loaded mag in the gun and no round in the chamber. I.e., no rounds in the weapon in any way shape or form.

Other than that, you could put 20 loaded mags in a box with your unloaded gun and you're good to go as long as the "box" is locked.

[ARDude]

See above.

LAPD does not write the law.

I know that police agencies don't write laws, but they enforce them based on their interpretation of those laws. And obviously some agencies have interpreted some laws incorrectly, or enacted policies that are wrong.

My statement is on a policy that exists.

Again, as CSA has said, do you want to be a test case?

Even if you were to be arrested for this, and the case were dropped (most likely), you would still have a record of an arrest.

[CSACANNONEER]

It could be argued - but I don't think successfully - that even with a magazine and ammunition inserted in a mag well that gun is not loaded unless there might be a round chambered. That is, in fact, the Fish and Game Code definition, and I would expect a court to say the Legislature could have written a parallel definition into the Penal Code, and since they did not do that, that is not what they meant.

Luckily I had a copy of the F&G Code once when I needed to show it to an officer. I think it kept me out of jail but, another officer might have seen it differently. This was a decade before People v. Clark so, the whole "attached to in any manner" was still the law of the land. I was hunting but but happened to have my rifle in the truck parked on a dirt "public road" in the LPNF.

[TeddyBallgame]

i appreciate California so much for all the hoops they make me go through just to protect myself

laws that turn people, who have no criminal intent whatsoever into criminals are some of the most ridiculous on the books...and we probably lead the league in them

without any criminal element involved wtf difference does it make how I transport my firearm

[Falstaff]

People v Clark. There has already been a test case. It can be attached to the firearm as long as the ammunition is not in a position to be fired. Ammo can be attached to the but stock or sling (think shotguns) Ammo can be in loaded mags (clips too) as long as the ammo is not in a position to be fired.

not to mention a more recent case than clark where the calguns foundation successfully litigated on behalf of a guy in the san diego area who was charged with a violation of 12020 because he had an unloaded 45 with a loaded mag in the lockbox.
Its NOT vague. It's clear as an unmuddied stream- penal code and case law clearly allows transport of loaded magazines in the same container. The only vagueness is coming from the "discretion is the better part of valor" crowd here that eschew the actual exercise of rights because in their worldview, exercising rights leads to loss of those rights.

put it this way, before i had a ccw permit i considered LUCC'ing (locked, unloaded, concealed carry) the poor man's CCW. however, I was fully aware that although i knew the law supported this action, some law enforcement might not.
In other words, you'll beat the RAP but you may not beat the ride.

[Never Convicted]

"...sounds like I need to call the local PD and ask them."

NO !

Do your own research and understand the law. Many resources have been previously noted.

[CSACANNONEER]

not to mention a more recent case than clark where the calguns foundation successfully litigated on behalf of a guy in the san diego area who was charged with a violation of 12020 because he had an unloaded 45 with a loaded mag in the lockbox.
Its NOT vague. It's clear as an unmuddied stream- penal code and case law clearly allows transport of loaded magazines in the same container. The only vagueness is coming from the "discretion is the better part of valor" crowd here that eschew the actual exercise of rights because in their worldview, exercising rights leads to loss of those rights.

put it this way, before i had a ccw permit i considered LUCC'ing (locked, unloaded, concealed carry) the poor man's CCW. however, I was fully aware that although i knew the law supported this action, some law enforcement might not.
In other words, you'll beat the RAP but you may not beat the ride.

Please cite the case you're referring to. So far, you seem to be the only person here that has heard of it.

[TeddyBallgame]

not to mention a more recent case than clark where the calguns foundation successfully litigated on behalf of a guy in the san diego area who was charged with a violation of 12020 because he had an unloaded 45 with a loaded mag in the lockbox.
Its NOT vague. It's clear as an unmuddied stream- penal code and case law clearly allows transport of loaded magazines in the same container. The only vagueness is coming from the "discretion is the better part of valor" crowd here that eschew the actual exercise of rights because in their worldview, exercising rights leads to loss of those rights.

put it this way, before i had a ccw permit i considered LUCC'ing (locked, unloaded, concealed carry) the poor man's CCW. however, I was fully aware that although i knew the law supported this action, some law enforcement might not.
In other words, you'll beat the RAP but you may not beat the ride.

Please cite the case you're referring to. So far, you seem to be the only person here that has heard of it.

not to be the bearer of bad news, but, it doesn't matter what the law says, or, what case law is already on the books

what really matters is whether or not the LEO you are dealing with knows and understands the law as it is meant to be enforced...if not, it won't matter, you'll still stand the possibility of arrest, and, until the matter can be thoroughly investigated, you'll either stay in a cage, or, hopefully bail out

best case scenario, it will just end up as a "DA reject", no filing of charges, but, that still won't undo the rash of sh** you had to endure, due to THEIR lack of knowledge of the law...worst case scenario, they'll scour the books looking for anything else that they might be able to stick on you to justify EVERYTHING they did...no rock will go unturned...am i wrong?

don't even expect an apology out of it

[notme92069]

Yup, this is my take on it as well. So, either leave your ammo in it's box instead of the mag or transport the loaded mag in your pocket or anywhere besides the case that the gun is in.



Fail! Read People V Clark again. It CLEARLY states that "in a position ready to be fired" includes in a magazine or clip. So, A loaded magazine in the stock of a SU16 is considered loaded in CA but, having rounds stored in or on a stock which are not in a magazine or clip is legally not a loaded gun in CA. In this case, if a loaded magazine is in the same container as a firearm it will work in, it COULD be considered "attached to" and is definitely legally "in a position capable of firing" even if the magazine is not inserted in the magwell.

Fail!

From the opinion "from which the ammunition cannot be fired." if a magazine is not in the firearm, the ammunition cannot be fired. No where in the opinion does it state that a loaded magazine not inserted into the firearm is considered a loaded firearm. You merely inferred that from your own reading of the opinion.

[notme92069]

not to be the bearer of bad news, but, it doesn't matter what the law says, or, what case law is already on the books

what really matters is whether or not the LEO you are dealing with knows and understands the law as it is meant to be enforced...if not, it won't matter, you'll still stand the possibility of arrest, and, until the matter can be thoroughly investigated, you'll either stay in a cage, or, hopefully bail out

best case scenario, it will just end up as a "DA reject", no filing of charges, but, that still won't undo the rash of sh** you had to endure, due to THEIR lack of knowledge of the law...worst case scenario, they'll scour the books looking for anything else that they might be able to stick on you to justify EVERYTHING they did...no rock will go unturned...am i wrong?

don't even expect an apology out of it

If we are going to live our lives out of fear of what an uninformed police officer is going to do, we would all never leave the house.

[TeddyBallgame]

If we are going to live our lives out of fear of what an uninformed police officer is going to do, we would all never leave the house.

you're right, and, fortunately i don't have that fear...i play by the rules, although im not afraid to see something through when i know im right...i have my own form of CCW, unfortunately, due to the county i live in, i have to CCW through the use of a combination case with the magazine adjacent to my firearm

it's their rules, i have to play by them for now, but, if i ever run into an issue concerning my transport method with an uninformed LEO, i'll have no problem taking it before a judge