**Case law now states the ammunition must be in a position from which is can be fired (People. v. Clark)
In "People v. Clark" (1996), the California Court of Appeal clarified that in order to be "loaded" a firearm must have ammunition "placed into a position from which it can be fired." It even went so far as to point out as an example of what is not loaded to include shells attached to a shotgun inside a buttstock shell carrier.
Are these sections not in conflict? The first two make it clear what "loaded" means in light of People v. Clark
, but the scenario ignores that definition.
Also curious is the insistence that there is no gun registration in California (except for "assault weapons"), while pointing out that charges should be upgraded to a felony if there is no DROS in the carrier's name.
"Why, nooooo, there's no registration in California! But we're just going to check our statewide computer database to make sure you're the reg... er, umm, the lawful owner."
I really feel sorry for those of you imprisoned there.