So what's the final word regarding the term "loaded"

[TacFan]

I would like to start carrying my pistol gripped shotgun in the car with me. If I just load the magazine tube and not the chamber, is it still "considered loaded firearm" ? What about having the shells in a side saddle ?

Any input will be appreciated. Thanks

[hoffmang]

I think you would lose the "loaded" argument in court if there were rounds in the tube magazine. However, having rounds in a side saddle is clearly legal. Read People v. Clark.

-Gene

[TacFan]

I think you would lose the "loaded" argument in court if there were rounds in the tube magazine. However, having rounds in a side saddle is clearly legal. Read People v. Clark.

-Gene

thanks Gene

[TacFan]

"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 which 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." (Italics added.)
Using this definition, the court told the jury "A shotgun is deemed to be 'loaded' when there is an unexpended shell ... in, or attached in any manner to, the shotgun."

Actually, it doesn't seem like the side saddle attached to the shotgun would fly either

[hoffmang]

Uhh.. Tac - did you read the case?

When the police seized the shotgun, it did not have a shell in the firing chamber. There were, however, three shells located in a covered compartment at the rear of the shotgun's stock. It is not possible to fire a shell from that location; a shell would have to be removed from the compartment and placed by hand in the chamber before it could be fired. A sheriff's deputy testified the shells were located in a "storage area."

...

Second, even if we were to accept the Attorney General's assertion that the definition of "loaded" contained in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g) applies to Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a), we would still conclude the shotgun here was not loaded.

[TacFan]

Uhh.. Tac - did you read the case?

Yes but the part that mentioned the shell is attached to the gun in any way, it is considered loaded. So like always, I'm confused about the Cali laws
But it seems like if it cannot be fired with the shells being attached, it is legit. I just don't know if I want to push it

[tango-52]

Yes but the part that mentioned the shell is attached to the gun in any way, it is considered loaded. So like always, I'm confused about the Cali laws

Just ask someone at DOJ/BOF. I'm sure they would be happy to clear it right up. Probably even write you a letter!

[hoffmang]

The court case controls. It was an appelate case. Their interpretation is binding on what defines loaded. They say a shotgun with rounds in the stock is not loaded. That means that a shotgun with rounds attached to the stock is not loaded. The AG was trying to posit their definition which you quoted. The court said, "no, the ammo has to be in a place where it is ready to fire to be considered loaded." Having to use your hands to move the shells from a side saddle to the chamber or tube magazine is exactly analogous to the Clark case.

-Gene

[Solidmch]

Just ask someone at DOJ/BOF. I'm sure they would be happy to clear it right up. Probably even write you a letter!

Will the letter leave it up to 58 DA's???

[hoffmang]

Luckily this one is settled jurisprudence.

-Gene

[artherd]

Statute law over-reached, the court found in People V. Clark that side-saddles (specifically) are not-loaded.

Consult your attorney, but in my non lawyer opinion People V. Clark is the current law of the land. (generally) Case Law trumps statute law when the two conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law

Edited to add: YES, you practically have to be an attorney to own a gun in CA these days. And NO most cops are not attorneys, and under mistaken impression about, well, most laws. Period.

[TacFan]

The court case controls. It was an appelate case. Their interpretation is binding on what defines loaded. They say a shotgun with rounds in the stock is not loaded. That means that a shotgun with rounds attached to the stock is not loaded. The AG was trying to posit their definition which you quoted. The court said, "no, the ammo has to be in a place where it is ready to fire to be considered loaded." Having to use your hands to move the shells from a side saddle to the chamber or tube magazine is exactly analogous to the Clark case.

-Gene

Yes but hypothetically speaking, if I was pulled over for a traffic stop and the officer spotted the shotgun on the passenger seat with the shells in the side saddle (attached to not the stock but the actual receiver), wouldn't the officer most likely take me in ? Or would they already know about the Clark case. It would most likely cost me some lawyer fees wouldn't you agree ?

[JALLEN]

Be careful. It is only settled in the Fourth District, i.e. San Diego. It is not binding precedence in the rest of the state. Other courts of appeal may disagree, and sometimes do. It is very persuasive, as a prior holding of an appellate court, but not controlling. When district courts of appeal disagree, the Supreme Court has to settle it.

Also, your case will not be EXACTLY the same, in all likelihood, or different issues and/or arguments arise, giving rise to the possibility of a different result. OR, the court of appeal may decide that this prior case was decided in error and reverse its own precedence. You end up in jail in all events.

[hoffmang]

Having an unloaded shotgun in the seat next to you will get you taken in regardless of whether you have shells.

They are your rights. Exercise them if you wish as they are not without risk.

-Gene

[artherd]

Step off your porch in the morning, and you're mixed up in something. From there, it's all a matter of degrees.

Best!
-Ben.