• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

PC12031(g) vs. Case Law (People vs. Clark)

R

Roy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
21
Location
, ,
imported post

I haven't open carried in a while and I'm planning a trip tomorrow. I was reviewing the PC and a couple of gears started turning. Please keep in mind that this will most likely result in your detention and I'm not yet willing to attempt it at the moment. I would also like to review the full case ruling (People vs. Clark). Please see my thoughts below.


PC12031(g) - Loaded firearm is defined as when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell in, or attached in any manny to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof attached to the firearm.
Click to expand...

noted in People vs. Clark - "for a firearm to be loaded it must have ammunition "placed into a position from which it can be fired."
Click to expand...
Open carry in condition 3 is considered loaded in regards to PC12031(g). On the other hand there is precedent case law stating that it is not loaded unless the ammunition is placed into a position from which it can be fired. Last I checked if a round isn't chambered it's not in a position to be fired.

So.. What are your thoughts on this line of thinking? I've just thrown this together fairy quickly and would have to review the complete ruling and speack to my legal counsel before ever attempting it.. I just thought I'd throw it out there to see what you all have to say.

-Roy

PS. whens the next meet?

 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Obviously I have no idea what the intention of the judge in the Clark case was, but I believe he was trying to clarify the "but not limited to" portion of the law. I would hope that if he genuinely meant that loaded was defined as having a round in the chamber that he would be a little bit more explicit with his words. I think he was trying to say that a firearm is loaded if by manipulation of the firearm you can eventually fire the round.

This would explain away the Clark ruling where the shells were on the buttstock of the shotgun and in no way possible could you manipulate the controls of the firearm to get those shells into the chamber and eventually fired.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

bigtoe416 wrote:
Obviously I have no idea what the intention of the judge in the Clark case was, but I believe he was trying to clarify the "but not limited to" portion of the law.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Remember, this ruling modifies the statute.

So, if the clip or magazine is attached to the firearm in a position allowing the firing of rounds, I would say you're on very shakey ground. Challenging the statute as a whole will be much easier than getting a better reading of the definition.
 
B

BSProof

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
45
Location
, ,
imported post

In military weapons training (and I'd even bet law enforcement), there is a well known expression: "Lock and load." Meaning, place and lock a magazine of rounds in the firearm, then load a round into the chamber. (U.S.M.C. Ooh-Raah!)

Unfortunately, there are some judges who either don't have personal knowledge of the issues they rule upon, or are judicial activists.

I don't know if one could call that "shakey ground" when it is common knowledge within all branches of the military. More like a crap shoot of getting an arbitrary, and erroneous decision.

It is also unfortunate that most attorney's don't know, or just wont raise the arguments they should be for their clients. Another excellent reason to learn the applicable laws, so as to properly instruct your mouthpiece (the attorney) or litigate the issue yourself.

If it were I and faced with the issue, I'd be doing a Request for Judicial Notice of this phrase and get it on record as a matter of common knowledge of military (and highly possible law enforcement) fact.

A chambered round is factually what loaded firearm means.
 
T

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

I have, myself wondered this. I too...in the Army learned the difference between locked and loaded.

By my training:

Locked: condition in which ammunition is placed in a feeding device such as a magazine, belted ammunition or other device that makes the rounds immediately available to load a firearm.
Loaded: condition in which a live round of ammunition is inserted into the chamber of a weapon.
Cocked: condition in which a firearm is prepared to upon pulling of the trigger releasing the firing mechanism of the firearm.

And even this wording can be confused...

Nick the Sniper wrote:
In military weapons training (and I'd even bet law enforcement), there is a well known expression: "Lock and load." Meaning, place and lock a magazine of rounds in the firearm, then load a round into the chamber. (U.S.M.C. Ooh-Raah!)

Unfortunately, there are some judges who either don't have personal knowledge of the issues they rule upon, or are judicial activists.

I don't know if one could call that "shakey ground" when it is common knowledge within all branches of the military. More like a crap shoot of getting an arbitrary, and erroneous decision.

It is also unfortunate that most attorney's don't know, or just wont raise the arguments they should be for their clients. Another excellent reason to learn the applicable laws, so as to properly instruct your mouthpiece (the attorney) or litigate the issue yourself.

If it were I and faced with the issue, I'd be doing a Request for Judicial Notice of this phrase and get it on record as a matter of common knowledge of military (and highly possible law enforcement) fact.

A chambered round is factually what loaded firearm means.
Click to expand...
 
C

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Nick the Sniper wrote:
...

Unfortunately, there are some judges who either don't have personal knowledge of the issues they rule upon, or are judicial activists.

I don't know if one could call that "shakey ground" when it is common knowledge within all branches of the military. More like a crap shoot of getting an arbitrary, and erroneous decision.
Click to expand...
I'd say there are a lot of naive judges, and most of them are judicial activists. Those two groups have a very large area of overlap.

As for my use of the phrase "shakey ground"... I was referring to the legal reality, not the logical merit of the argument. Logic, it seems, is far removed from our 'justice' process.

Logically, I agree 100% that there is a difference between "locked" and "loaded." However, when a statutory defenition is supplied, it supercedes the common definition. So, again, we must attack 12031 as a whole. It would be nearly impossible to simply attack the statutory definition.
 
B

BSProof

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
45
Location
, ,
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Nick the Sniper wrote:
...

Unfortunately, there are some judges who either don't have personal knowledge of the issues they rule upon, or are judicial activists.

I don't know if one could call that "shakey ground" when it is common knowledge within all branches of the military. More like a crap shoot of getting an arbitrary, and erroneous decision.
Click to expand...
I'd say there are a lot of naive judges, and most of them are judicial activists. Those two groups have a very large area of overlap.

As for my use of the phrase "shakey ground"... I was referring to the legal reality, not the logical merit of the argument. Logic, it seems, is far removed from our 'justice' process.

Logically, I agree 100% that there is a difference between "locked" and "loaded." However, when a statutory defenition is supplied, it supercedes the common definition. So, again, we must attack 12031 as a whole. It would be nearly impossible to simply attack the statutory definition.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware of the rule for when statutory definitions are supplied. More attorney-ism and activism in my opinion.

I have just said it on another thread, and I'll say it again here, our answer is understanding how to properly challenge in court by learning procedural law. Most of us have a pretty good understanding of the substance of the law.

I hear at times "the constitution doesn't say the government can't regulate firearms" blah, blah, blah, and I always think to my times in court and how the attorneys basically live on their knees in front of these judges when they should be re-torting "the constitution doesn't say the government CAN either."
 
R

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
imported post

Hi All !



"Infringed" (1)" To commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress.

(2) To encroach or trespass.

"Infringement" (1) A breach or infraction,as of law,right,or obligation; violation;

transgression. (2) act of infringing.

From the "1947 American College Dictionary" ( Random house.

I wonder what " Blacks Law Book" first edition saids about that, IF we could even find one today.

LOL ! Robin47
 
B

BSProof

New member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
45
Location
, ,
imported post

Robin47 wrote:
Hi All !



"Infringed" (1)" To commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress.

(2) To encroach or trespass.

"Infringement" (1) A breach or infraction,as of law,right,or obligation; violation;

transgression. (2) act of infringing.

From the "1947 American College Dictionary" ( Random house.

I wonder what " Blacks Law Book" first edition saids about that, IF we could even find one today.

LOL ! Robin47
Click to expand...

I have one, and it says:

"INFRINGEMENT. A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right. Used especially of invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks." Black's Law Dictionary (1891, 1st Edition) p. 622, col. 1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top