Was it EVER illegal to transport Ammunition in the same container as a firearm?

[PutTogether]

someone posted this in a thread about gun store employees on the General Gun Discussion board.

I don't understand why so many people think that having ammo in the same place as their gun is illegal? I gotta say, before I started frequenting this site *I* thought it was illegal. Seriously, was there some show in the 80's or 90's that mentioned it (often!)? Is it actually illegal in some states? Anyone have any idea?

The post got buried amongst other replies, but I thought it was a great question. SOOO many people think that it is illegal, it makes you wonder if maybe at one time it WAS illegal, or maybe there was a famous movie or TV show where a character said it was illegal and the idea stuck. Who knows.

So, both djleisure and I (the original poster of the quote above) want to know:

1. Was it EVER illegal In California or anywhere else in the US.
2. If not, why do so many people belive this one piece of specific FUD?

[Seesm]

I think it just was THOUGHT to be...

I have had more than a few LEO and Correctional officers tell me it is STILL illegal... Funny stuff.

[The Director]

Yeah. in Canada.

[hoffmang]

No idea where the FUD originated, but it was and is FUD.

-Gene

[Cokebottle]

No idea where the FUD originated, but it was and is FUD.

Been a lot of FUD... some of it dangerous (and I guess not technically "FUD" because it didn't err on the side of caution... so simply "UD").

When I worked retail in the '80s, I was told (by a Whittier cop), that I could legally carry concealed within the business (no mention of permission from the owner), as soon as I stepped onto the sidewalk, the gun had to be exposed (but still loaded!), and as soon as I got into the car, the mag and gun had to be separated and either, but not both, available to an occupant. No mention of a locked container (and of course, this was before the advent of the rights-free school zone).

Other FUD, based on the above transportation "rule" (though it may be applicable in other states), is that some states who were not then (but are now) shall-issue would automatically issue to anyone who owned a pickup, station wagon, or SUV, because it was not physically possible to separate the gun from the ammo while still having them secure.

[FastFinger]

The confusion, I believe, is partially by design.

Becoming a new firearm owner is a big step, at least for people who have a sense of responsibility. Besides the inherent power and of the projectile, there is the moral question of self defense coupled with harming another human.

If your goal is to discourage people from becoming gun owners those impediments aren't enough, so you will endeavor to construct yet even more barriers to otherwise legitimate ownership. And if you're a bureaucrat, politician, LEO, or legislator another powerful discouraging force is legal FUD - confusing, intimidating, laws and regulations.

To us common layfolk legal vernacular is confusing and intimidating in and of itself, and compounding that puzzle by constructing non-nonsensical, self-contradicting, useless, and enigmatic laws will guaranty that a lot of potential owners will stop their pursuit of gun ownership just because they can't figure out the legalities. Considering that the potential ramifications for inadvertently misinterpreting firearm legalities can result in significant life altering penalties, that hesitation is understandable.

10 rounds and under - must be non detachable, over 10 rounds - make that detachable; barrel too long, illegal, barrel just a bit shorter, illegal. It makes no sense, and that is the goal.

FUD is good for you. Comrades, eat more FUD!

[franklinarmory]

Just be careful about 12031(g)

(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.

An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.

[PutTogether]

Just be careful about 12031(g)

(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.

An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.

See, this is what I'm talking about. In a thread about this whole idea being FUD - this gets posted. No disrespect to the person posting it, but where does this sensitivity of ammo being near a gun come from? It's been gone over, and gone over, and gone over again.

[JDay]

I'm sure there's a few states where it is illegal but not in California.

[Cokebottle]

See, this is what I'm talking about. In a thread about this whole idea being FUD - this gets posted. No disrespect to the person posting it, but where does this sensitivity of ammo being near a gun come from? It's been gone over, and gone over, and gone over again.

And there have been clarification memos from the AG that sidesaddle rigs mounted to a shotgun are not considered "loaded"... therefore, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; is not violated by having the shells mounted in this manner.

[Liberty1]

Was it EVER illegal In California or anywhere else in the US.

I believe the following could be the CA sources of the FUD. None of these are implicated unless you are violating that specific prohibative section.

PC 12025 (b)

Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is
punishable, as follows:


(6) By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment if
both of the following conditions are met:
(A) Both the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person and the unexpended ammunition capable of
being discharged from that firearm are either in the immediate
possession of the person or readily accessible to that person, or

and

171e. A firearm shall be deemed loaded for the purposes of Sections
171c and 171d whenever both the firearm and unexpended ammunition
capable of being discharged from such firearm are in the immediate
possession of the same person.

and

12001(j) For purposes of Section 12023, 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.

[franklinarmory]

...where does this sensitivity of ammo being near a gun come from?

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,...

I don't want to spread FUD, since I suspect that the courts have weighed in on this issue over time, but depending on how the ammo was transported, a cop might try to argue that the ammo was "attached". Obviously if the ammo is in the magazine, and the magazine is in the gun, your goose is cooked.

[Liberty1]

An overzealous cop wishing to promote "maximum enforcement" might try to wrangle something out of this even if you have it in a locked case.

Yes and that "gun in holster attached to belt around your waist touching mag pouch with magazines inside which contain ammo" streeeeetch has always failed.

And with People v Clark that officer just sunk his 4th A. qualified immunity.

[Theseus]

[Librarian]

926?