Concealing a mag while Open Carrying

[Standard]

Apparently it is illegal to conceal a loaded mag while open carrying, as it is considered a part of the firearm, but what if you have an empty mag in the gun, and a loaded mag in your pocket?
Can the loaded mag be considered part of the gun if the gun already contains a magazine, and can, therefore, not accept another?

[MudCamper]

Apparently it is illegal to conceal a loaded mag while open carrying, as it is considered a part of the firearm, but what if you have an empty mag in the gun, and a loaded mag in your pocket?
Can the loaded mag be considered part of the gun if the gun already contains a magazine, and can, therefore, not accept another?

While I would agree with your contention that, with an empty mag already in the gun, how could any sane person continue to make the insane judgement that another concealed mag makes your gun concealed. Howeverm the entire idea in the first place (People v Hale) is totally insane. Therefore, if an appeals court could have made the insane ruling in the first place, then they could do it again in your example. It's stupid beyond belief, but best not to conceal your mags.

[Ironchef]

That, and the odds of a cop following that reasoning is hardly likely.

"Oh, so the empty mag is what's considered part of the gun, not the loaded one you have concealed! My bad! On your way good and lawful citizen! I'm off to the donut house to memorize more PC!"

[Glock22Fan]

It is indeed insane. Just mental games, but I've been wondering a couple of related questions too. There's probably no safe answer until someone becomes a case law example but I'll mention them anyway.

1) If a loaded magazine can be considered to be a firearm, what if you have a concealed loaded magazine in your pocket but no gun? Seems that this should be legal, but I've heard at least one so-called expert say it isn't.

2) What if you have an openly-carried unloaded gun, openly carried loaded magazines on your belt, and another loaded magazine in your pocket? Common sense would say that you are openly carrying both empty gun and loaded magazines, but I suspect that they could try you if they were bloody minded enough.

Of course, this is all mental mas*****tion. Best to avoid the situation unless you can afford $10K+ to become an example.

[Theseus]

Not so fast. . You can argue...Not to a cop, but a court.

While I would agree with your contention that, with an empty mag already in the gun, how could any sane person continue to make the insane judgement that another concealed mag makes your gun concealed. Howeverm the entire idea in the first place (People v Hale) is totally insane. Therefore, if an appeals court could have made the insane ruling in the first place, then they could do it again in your example. It's stupid beyond belief, but best not to conceal your mags.

Using the courts line of reasoning if you have a firearm plainly sitting on your seat in an otherwise legal fashion but have the firing pin to that firearm in your pocket, you then could be found guilty of concealed because the firing pin is a major component of a gun, "as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm".

I believe that the argument could be made that with an empty magazine in the firearm completes the weapon, and then makes the remaining magazines "additional components" as opposed to "major components". Using this argument may or may not work, only a trial can determine that. . . But remember, when in court you can get VERY creative with the law and often lawyers love it (from what they tell me, many get off on it). The problem is that it won't work on a LEO. They are only creative in finding ways to arrest you, not find you innocent.

And remember folks, I am not a lawyer in life, even though I may or may not play one on TV from time to time. Nothing I say can be considered or is legal advise and relying solely on my words and not consulting trained, educated, and hopefully well informed legal council to form a legal argument is not advisable.

[sorensen440]

Apparently it is illegal to conceal a loaded mag while open carrying, as it is considered a part of the firearm, but what if you have an empty mag in the gun, and a loaded mag in your pocket?
Can the loaded mag be considered part of the gun if the gun already contains a magazine, and can, therefore, not accept another?

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

[Since this post concentrates on loaded, other parts of 12031 are omitted, including the definitions of other terms in (a)(1).]

(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.

[Theseus]

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

[Since this post concentrates on loaded, other parts of 12031 are omitted, including the definitions of other terms in (a)(1).]

(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.

This question was about concealment though and not LOADED. Expressly different problems, thus completely different arguments.

[Standard]

Yeah, I'm more concerned with it being considered concealed, while openly on my hip.

[Librarian]

1) If a loaded magazine can be considered to be a firearm, what if you have a concealed loaded magazine in your pocket but no gun? Seems that this should be legal, but I've heard at least one so-called expert say it isn't.

First, a loaded magazine cannot be considered a firearm. No chamber, no barrel, no firing mechanism, no serial number. Both CA and Feds define firearm as the receiver.

It is possible to have both a weapon and a loaded magazine for it, not in the weapon, and have a defined 'loaded gun'. Those lesser places in PC that worry about loaded don't care about whether the ammunition is in a magazine, just that one person has both gun and ammo for it.

There are a few places where ammunition alone, regardless of magazine, is prohibited: airport sterile areas, for one.

[sorensen440]

This question was about concealment though and not LOADED. Expressly different problems, thus completely different arguments.

no the question in my understanding was concealing a mag while open carrying

[Standard]

The question was about having a concealed magazine and being considered having a concealed weapon. Loaded or not, doesn't really matter to this scenario.
My question really is whether mag #2 (in one's pocket) is an integral part of the gun, when the gun contains mag #1.

[Librarian]

The question was about having a concealed magazine and being considered having a concealed weapon. Loaded or not, doesn't really matter to this scenario.
My question really is whether mag #2 (in one's pocket) is an integral part of the gun, when the gun contains mag #1.

It's an 'edge case'.

Logic and reason are on your side. The idea that a magazine is an 'integral part of the gun' is refuted by the existence of multiple magazines in one person's possession. Which one is 'integral'? The gun will fire with either #1 or #2, or even, with some difficulty, without either (assuming no mag disconnect).

Sadly, that seldom has any influence on legal interpretations.

[MudCamper]

Look, we all agree here that a concealed mag is not a concealed gun, but it is currently case law:

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/calapp3d/43/353.html

[Theseus]

Look, we all agree here that a concealed mag is not a concealed gun, but it is currently case law:

http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...3d/43/353.html

From my understanding of this board, we are supposed to be discussing not only to share the law, but our interpretation of the law, thus my statements. I understand that the wording of the ruling was incorrect, and thus the argument was incorrect.

The correct wording of rule from People v Hale: "concealment of an essential component of a visible weapon, when done in such a fashion as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm"

To me this statement defines what essential is supposed to mean. i.e.

essential component is a component that can make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm.

So we understand that an empty mag in the weapon does not fit the definition, because it does not make make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm, however a loaded one does.

So for this argument the question is whether you can argue that the empty mag in the firearm can make the 2nd, loaded magazine no longer apply to the definition of essential component.

So, we can try to play all sorts of games with this ruling using the definition. Yes, certainly we can all agree this is a dangerous game to play, but fun to play none the less, as long as it remains theory.

Argument: If we can argue that the presence of mag #1 (unloaded) in the mag chamber of the firearm makes mag #2 not qualify as an essential component by fact that the time to disconnect mag #1 from the firearm makes mag #2 not capable of making the weapon readily available for use as a firearm. . then you have an argument.

Otherwise I see little more that can be done.

[MudCamper]

From my understanding of this board, we are supposed to be discussing not only to share the law, but our interpretation of the law

OK. That's what you are doing. I'm just offering my opinion to the OP as to what is the most legal way to OC in California.