Turners Information or "Misinformation"?

[pacrat]

The charge would be PC 25400 (Carrying a Concealed Weapon). The court in Hale made clear that only a part of the weapon (in Hale's case, only the magazine) had to be concealed in order for the crime to be present. The complete concealment of the weapon was not required.

Another example of CrapOfornia Activist judges at their worst.

[M1NM]

Your first mistake was listening to anything gun related from a Turners employee.

[SarcoBlaster]

Didn't have to read beyond the title of your post to know it was misinformation.

Turners sucks.

[riderr]

I overheard staff behind the counter at my local Turner's tell a customer that...
"In California, carrying a loaded magazine is considered a loaded firearm" "you cannot carry loaded magazines in your vehicle even though they are not in the magazine well of the firearm"

It's not accurate. However, if a loaded magazine is in a plain view in your car, that will lead to further questioning and a potential unwarranted search.

[WWDHD?]

It has always been my habit when transporting firearms to the range to keep my magazines empty and ammo in a different container. It just seems like a reasonable step to take in case I ever get stopped by a LEO along the way.

[still919]

Go to Turners for firearms and firearm related products. Not legal advice.

[RCGunDude]

Don't go to Turner's period. If you can source it anywhere else and not run around too much. These guys in Huntington Beach store are complete douches. Seriously cannot be more rude or condescending.

[sfvshooter]

Turners is a joke...avoid at all cost.

[vino68]

I think I know where this one got started. Don't look to the Penal Code for the details, they're in case law.

Please review the California Court of Appeals 1974 decision in People v Hale. In that case, Hale was stopped by deputies who observed an unloaded pistol, without its magazine, in plain view, in the vehicle. At the time that was perfectly legal. Deputies searched the vehicle and found the magazine for the weapon, ammunition and Hale's stash of amphetamine concealed under the console's ashtray.

Hale accepted a plea deal to the dope charge only and challenged the lawfulness of the vehicle search. The court found that the missing magazine provided probable cause to search the vehicle for it on the grounds that if the magazine, being a component of the firearm, were concealed, then the crime of carrying a concealed weapon would be present. The court noted that the law did not require complete concealment of the firearm, the concealment of the magazine was sufficient.

The Hale case was briefed to LEOs during the "Open Carry" protest days. many folks openly carried unloaded handguns during those events, but also had loaded magazines in pockets, just in case the need for them should arise. The Hale case provided a basis to for arrest in such cases.

I'm aware of one CCW Instructor in Northern California (who was also a California Highway Patrolperson) who used Hale to teach that it was a crime a carry a concealed loaded magazine. That would be true if the person was also in possession of the corresponding firearm (in which case the crime would also be complete even if the magazine were unloaded). But without the corresponding weapon being present, Hale creates no criminal liability.

Rick, thank you for providing this information.

[omega]

if a DEPT of FISH & GAME finds you have a loaded magazine and no rounds are chambered, they might classify that as a loaded firearm?

[RickD427]

if a DEPT of FISH & GAME finds you have a loaded magazine and no rounds are chambered, they might classify that as a loaded firearm?

The agency affiliation of the nice officer having contact with you is irrelevant to the application of the law in this case.

The Fish and Game Code does define a loaded weapon slightly differently than does the Penal Code, but that definition only applies to the carrying of a loaded weapon within a vehicle upon a highway. The F+G Code section requires that a round be chambered in order for the weapon to be considered as loaded. Please refer to F+G Code section 2006.

The general Penal Code section (as well as People v Clark) considers a weapon as loaded whenever there are rounds in the chamber, or in the magazine. The special Penal Code sections consider a weapon as loaded whenever the weapon and ammunition are in the possession of the same individual.

California law generally makes it illegal to carry a loaded weapon, but makes an exception for locations in an unincorporated part of a county where shooting is permitted. Please refer to PC section 25850(a). But shooting on a public roadway is prohibited in all cases. Please refer to PC section 374c.

I can't think of any set of facts where a person would benefit from the relaxed definition of F+G Code 2006 without also being in violation of PC 25850(a).

As to the People v Hale case that I previously cited, the theory of criminal liability could not extend to the weapon being loaded. While it is possible for a "part" of the weapon to be concealed, it is not possible for only a "part" of the weapon to be loaded.

[Spaffo]

Rick, as usual, gives a clear, concise, and easy to understand explanation of California's convoluted firearms statutes and case law. If I was not retired, I would be quoting his posts.

[edgerly779]

Complete FUD. Another clue,less lgs employee.

[tbc]

I think I know where this one got started. Don't look to the Penal Code for the details, they're in case law.

Please review the California Court of Appeals 1974 decision in People v Hale. In that case, Hale was stopped by deputies who observed an unloaded pistol, without its magazine, in plain view, in the vehicle. At the time that was perfectly legal. Deputies searched the vehicle and found the magazine for the weapon, ammunition and Hale's stash of amphetamine concealed under the console's ashtray.

Hale accepted a plea deal to the dope charge only and challenged the lawfulness of the vehicle search. The court found that the missing magazine provided probable cause to search the vehicle for it on the grounds that if the magazine, being a component of the firearm, were concealed, then the crime of carrying a concealed weapon would be present. The court noted that the law did not require complete concealment of the firearm, the concealment of the magazine was sufficient.

The Hale case was briefed to LEOs during the "Open Carry" protest days. many folks openly carried unloaded handguns during those events, but also had loaded magazines in pockets, just in case the need for them should arise. The Hale case provided a basis to for arrest in such cases.

I'm aware of one CCW Instructor in Northern California (who was also a California Highway Patrolperson) who used Hale to teach that it was a crime a carry a concealed loaded magazine. That would be true if the person was also in possession of the corresponding firearm (in which case the crime would also be complete even if the magazine were unloaded). But without the corresponding weapon being present, Hale creates no criminal liability.

Wow, the gun law is just getting muddier.

Thanks for the post. It is definitely good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vino68]

Consider buying this book: https://www.calgunlawsbook.com/