Loaded Magazine in car legality.

[novabrian]

In my hunter's safety course the instructor told the class that if you have a loaded magazine in your car that is the same as a loaded gun even if you don't have the gun with you.Is this true?

[Cokebottle]

In my hunter's safety course the instructor told the class that if you have a loaded magazine in your car that is the same as a loaded gun even if you don't have the gun with you.Is this true?

FUD

Loaded magazine is only an issue if being carried concealed while otherwise carrying UOC. The laws are confusing, as the magazine is considered an integral part of the weapon, so when on foot, it must ALSO be carried openly with the gun, but it may be carried loaded.

A gun is considered loaded only if there are rounds in a position to be fired (magazine loaded and inserted into the magwell).

[PhantomII]

Sometimes you may have to explain to the LEO involved about what exactly constitutes a "loaded" firearm.

It took a considerable amount of effort once, to convince a certain CHP officer that no matter how hard I tried, I would never be able to successfully chamber and fire an expended 30-30 cartridge into a .22 lever action rifle and therefor, having both in the passenger compartment of a vehicle did not technically constitute a loaded weapon.

To this day, I don't think I completely convinced her but since she was able to cite me for speeding, she figured the stop was not a total loss and she let me go on my way.

[yzErnie]

In my hunter's safety course the instructor told the class that if you have a loaded magazine in your car that is the same as a loaded gun even if you don't have the gun with you.Is this true?

Not true. Hunter Safety Instructors mean well but sometimes give out some bad info.

[BigDogatPlay]

Not to bash Hunter Safety instructors who are all volunteers, but +1 to the above. There have been several threads over time relating stories of Hunter Safety instructors dispensing less than solid information.

And, for whatever reason, there still are some LEOs serving out there who seem to have not heard of People v. Clark, which makes me scratch my head sometimes. The DFG wardens are very much familiar with it, as brianinca's post above notes.

And all California LEOs should be aware of what is and is not loaded.

[6172crew]

Look Ladies/Gents, this forum is provided to ask LEO questions while in the comfort of your home. You are asking them for a favor.

Keep that in mind.

[norcal.xd]

well, i had the same question. i know a guy that is trying to be a leo. he told me that its not only illegal to have loaded mags in your car but also a felony. i emailed the california doj on the issue. so far its been 2 weeks and no answer. i really would like a rock solid answer, cuz i dont want a felony.

[norcal.xd]

im sorry... he said its not legal....sorry

[yzErnie]

im sorry... he said its not legal....sorry

Who is "he"?

[Touchdown456]

Not to bash Hunter Safety instructors who are all volunteers, but +1 to the above. There have been several threads over time relating stories of Hunter Safety instructors dispensing less than solid information.

And, for whatever reason, there still are some LEOs serving out there who seem to have not heard of People v. Clark, which makes me scratch my head sometimes. The DFG wardens are very much familiar with it, as brianinca's post above notes.

And all California LEOs should be aware of what is and is not loaded.

I've actually started this very same thread a couple of months ago, and in it brought up different examples of why this law is confusing. Here is the exerpt from the court decision on People v Clark that didn't make sense to me (from page 4 paragraph 6):

Given the examples are all consistent with an intent to use the common meaning of "loaded," it follows the Legislature's use of the phrase "attached in any manner" to the firearm was intended to encompass a situation where a shell or cartridge might be attached to a firearm or "loaded" for firing by some unconventional method. The phrase does not demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to deem a firearm loaded no matter how a shell is attached to a firearm; in particular, it does not indicate a clear intent to deem a gun "loaded" when the ammunition, as here, is in a storage compartment which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip and from which the ammunition cannot be fired.

The part in bold is what throws me off, as it seems to tell us that People v Clark does not relate to magazines or clips.

Thoughts?

[BigDogatPlay]

The wiki is our friend.

There remains a lack of clarity whether a detachable magazine with rounds in the magazine inserted into the magazine well of a firearm is loaded as this may constitute a loaded firearm However, People v. Clark makes it very clear that loaded magazines in the same case or on a person's belt but not in the magazine well do not constitute a loaded firearm.

Nor does a loaded mag in the vehicle, which was the OP's original question. The language in Clark indicates that if the loaded mag is not attached to the gun, then it's not loaded all other things being equal. I think that point is made clear in Clark, and many agencies have trained to exactly that standard. I believe that all should, consistently.

[Touchdown456]

While I completely agree, and fully trust all of the smart minds that created the cal guns wiki info, I still get confused over that one line "which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip". Can someone help me understand why I'm reading it incorrectly?

[alex00]

While I completely agree, and fully trust all of the smart minds that created the cal guns wiki info, I still get confused over that one line "which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip". Can someone help me understand why I'm reading it incorrectly?

I think the distinction the court is trying to make is that if the ammunition is stored attached to a gun in a side saddle, or some sort of shell holder, that the gun is clearly not loaded under the penal code. I think they are using the phrase 'not equivalent to a magazine or clip' to clearly denote that ammunition attached to the gun is not loaded. It is not used to say that a loaded magazine or clip would constitute a loaded firearm. They are simply saying that if the holding object is not a magazine or a clip, it is clearly not loaded.

If the magazine or clip is loaded, and not attached in a position to fire, the gun is not loaded. Despite the confusing wording in the ruling.

[alex00]

well, i had the same question. i know a guy that is trying to be a leo. he told me that its not only illegal to have loaded mags in your car but also a felony. i emailed the california doj on the issue. so far its been 2 weeks and no answer. i really would like a rock solid answer, cuz i dont want a felony.

im sorry... he said its not legal....sorry

Your friend is wrong. Loaded magazines do not constitute loaded firearms. Even if they did, loaded firearms, except for narrow circumstances, are misdemeanors. Perhaps when he goes to the academy, and learns the elements of crimes, and punishments proscribed in the code, he will be more informed. I would also not expect too much assistance from the DOJ. They are not in a position to give legal advice, and will refer you to seek legal counsel for guidance. Rest assured, that it is perfectly legal for most people to carry loaded magazines in the car, in the same case as the gun.

[norcal.xd]

alex00.....thank you for explaining to me the law. ca law is too confussing on what is or isnt legal.