Transportation Question?.

[sonofeugene]

I took my sister to the local range recently so she could shoot my father?s guns. The guy at the counter noted how I had them packed up and proceeded to tell me what I was doing was illegal. I told him I was correct and that he was wrong. So I?m coming here to confirm what I know to be correct.

I had the magazines loaded but no magazines or rounds were in the guns. The magazines were in the case, lying separate from the gun. Again, there were no magazines in the guns.

So, is the guy mistaken on the law? Or am I incorrect?

[Librarian]

All that plus in a locked case is legal.

[sonofeugene]

That’s what I figured. I had each pistol in its own zippered soft case with a padlock attached and locked.

Thank you for your response.

Cheers!

[edgerly779]

Your good to go. the employee is upgfkd

[sonofeugene]

Thank you again.

Seems Reeds has hired a less than knowledgeable person. If I run into this person again, I’ll pull up this thread and show it to him.

Generally, Reeds has been a good local gun store. The majority of folk there are knowledgeable and helpful. And I’ve purchased a few guns from them.

[divingin]

If I run into this person again, I?ll pull up this thread and show it to him.

Don't show him the off-the-internet forum info, show him the California law regarding firearms transportation: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

That defines the legality per se; Further info can be found on various interpretive legal sites: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/25850/ for instance, where you find:

"1.2. What does ?loaded? mean?
Under California law, a firearm is loaded if there is either:

an unexpended cartridge or shell in the firing chamber, or
the same is in either a magazine or clip attached to the firearm."

So as long as a loaded magazine is not attached to the firearm, and there is no round in the chamber, the firearm is unloaded. If that firearm is in a locked container, it is in a legal condition to carry regardless of the presence of a loaded mag, as long as the mag is not attached to or contained within the firearm.

[FLIGHT762]

The actual case law on that is People VS Clark in 1996. Clark had a Shotgun with ammo attached to the stock of the Shotgun. He was arrested for the ammo"attached" to the weapon in the law.

Judge ruled in Clark's favor. We could now have ammo in the same container as the Firearm, as long as the ammo is "Not in a firing condition". A win for us.

Next time, tell the employee to look up People VS Clark.

[Hairball]

Same thing happened to me when I went to Riverside Indoor Shooting Range. I opened my bag and the guy told me it was a felony to carry ammo in the same bag as the firearm. I told him he was wrong and as long as the gun it not loaded it’s fine. They also instructed the CCW class that I attended that it was illegal to carry ammo and firearms in the same bag. As they also argued that only one firearm should be on your CCW along with other pearls of wisdom, I just ignored it and moved along.

[Sailormilan2]

I think that you?ll find that "attached to the weapon" means attached to the weapon in a manner ready to be fired. As mentioned by FLIGHT762, People v Clark had the ammo attached to the weapon, but it was not attached in a manner ready to be fired.
So, a magazine in a butt stock pouch is attached to the weapon, but it is not attached in a manner ready to be fired. A magazine in the magazine well is attached in a manner ready to be fired.

[RickD427]

I think that you?ll find that ?attached to the weapon? means attached to the weapon in a manner ready to be fired. As mentioned by FLIGHT762, People v Clark had the ammo attached to the weapon, but it was not attached in a manner ready to be fired.
So, a magazine in a butt stock pouch is attached to the weapon, but it is not attached in a manner ready to be fired. A magazine in the magazine well is attached in a manner ready to be fired.

People v Clark is a very worthwhile read, as is the text of Penal Code section 16840. It's always best to go straight to the source documents, and not to rely on a summary.

Here is the text of PC 16840:

"(a) As used in Section 25800, a firearm shall be deemed to be "loaded" whenever both the firearm and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from the firearm are in the immediate possession of the same person.
(b) As used in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 25100) of Division 4 of Title 4, in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (c) of Section 25400, and in Sections 25850 to 26055, inclusive,
(1) A firearm shall be deemed to be ?loaded? 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.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), 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."

People v Clark is attached.

But we also have to remember that this is California and nothing is simple. The range employee was not completely wrong. I'd be willing to bet that the employee read the above bolded part of the definition without noting the limitation of that part of the definition to PC 25800 (one of the special cases). There are circumstances where California defines a firearm as being "Loaded" whenever the weapon and ammunition are under the control of the same person. But the shooting range (unless located in the special area of Sacramento) isn't one of those places. With regard to the special definition of loaded, please note that People v Clark only interpreted the (b) subparagraph (the general definition) of the predecessor statute to PC 16840. Clark did not address the (a) subparagraph (one of the special definitions) of the predecessor statute.

People v Clark (Loaded Firearm).pdf

[tabascoz28]

Just print out the law and have it laying on top of the case when opened. When they start talking, point your finger to it.

[Dan_Eastvale]

Gun shops and ranges continue spewing out all kinds of FUD

They're not obliged to comment on laws... Real or perceived
Should keep their opinions to themselves

[Fat Old Guy]

That sounds like pure FUDDERY right there. The person behind the counter just embarrassed himself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sailormilan2]

Just print out the law and have it laying on top of the case when opened. When they start talking, point your finger to it.

I'm not sure that would fly. People v Clark, which is case law, dealt with the original load firearm definition, which was found in PC12031. PC 16840, which Rick posted a copy of, is nothing but 12031 with a new number. AFAIK, the wording has never been changed to reflect the case decision in the 27 years since People v Clark happened.
Case Law overrides Legislative Law, but the Legislature has not updated it.

As a side note. I worked with 2 Deputies who decided that for their own safety and the safety of others, they would keep their weapons(Glocks, if it matters) with an empty chamber while doing prisoner transport and guarding.
The Department ended up rewriting the Policy and Procedures Manual so that they had to have a round chambered. Up to that point, the Manual was only a rather vague, "Keep the gun loaded", and theirs was loaded according to the Law. So, the Policy had to be changed to have a specific wording requiring having a round in the chamber to cover the "issue"..

[RickD427]

I'm not sure that would fly. People v Clark, which is case law, dealt with the original load firearm definition, which was found in PC12031. PC 16840, which Rick posted a copy of, is nothing but 12031 with a new number. AFAIK, the wording has never been changed to reflect the case decision in the 27 years since People v Clark happened.
Case Law overrides Legislative Law, but the Legislature has not updated it.

As a side note. I worked with 2 Deputies who decided that for their own safety and the safety of others, they would keep their weapons(Glocks, if it matters) with an empty chamber while doing prisoner transport and guarding.
The Department ended up rewriting the Policy and Procedures Manual so that they had to have a round chambered. Up to that point, the Manual was only a rather vague, "Keep the gun loaded", and theirs was loaded according to the Law. So, the Policy had to be changed to have a specific wording requiring having a round in the chamber to cover the "issue"..

It don't work that way. Case law interprets statutes, not PC numbers. When Part Six of the Penal Code was re-codified, all of the section numbers changed, but the content (at least supposedly) remained unchanged.