Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: People vs Clark

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    I am not a lawyer so bear with me. Is there a way to ask, inquire, challenge, ask for clarification, whatever is the proper word, the court what it meant about the "loaded gun"?

    Example: loaded magazine in a magwell but no ammo chambered.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    It would help greatly if you posted a link to the case decision, or whatever it is that has the phrase "loaded gun" that you are inquiring about.

    I don't mind reading court decisions & trying to explain them in layman's terms but I am not going to do your basic searches for you too.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burton, Michigan
    Posts
    3,361

    Post imported post

    skidmark wrote:
    It would help greatly if you posted a link to the case decision, or whatever it is that has the phrase "loaded gun" that you are inquiring about.

    I don't mind reading court decisions & trying to explain them in layman's terms but I am not going to do your basic searches for you too.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    Skidmark, I think this is the case KS is referring to:

    http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Peo...ark-(1996).pdf

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    I thought this was interesting, so I looked it up a bit further. The penal code definition of loaded is still standing (with the law page updated last on jan. 12th 2009), so I'd say that the definition of loaded still stands. If a bullet is attached to a gun in any manner, it's loaded. It gets a bit odd when it comes to muzzle loaders, but in general don't touch a bullet to a gun or it's loaded.

    I'll be back, I'm going totape a bullet to the butt of my pistol and see if it can fire said bullet. Perhaps my definition of loaded is different from the court. Anybody else think that common sense doesn't apply to the laws anymore?

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    No, the penal code definition of loaded has been slightly modified by People v. Clark. In People v. Clark an unloaded shotgun with live rounds attached to the buttstock in what I believe is called a sidesaddle. The court ruled that while the rounds were attached to the gun, and thus meeting the definition of loaded according to the penal code, that the gun wasn't actually loaded.

    So because of People v. Clark you can have a round taped to your gun and you cannot be found guilty of having a loaded firearm. You cannot have a round which is in a place which it can be fired. This includes having a round in the chamber (obviously) or a round in a magazine which is in the firearm.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Hm, that's interesting. Well, they didn't update the text in the website anyhow: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve

    "(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."

    That'sfrom the CA site. Sorry for the misinformation, and thanks for the correction, Bigtoe. I wonder who to contact to get them to update their site to the correct writing of the law? I'll be happy to send an email to them, if anyone can point me in the right direction.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member MudCamper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sebastopol, California, USA
    Posts
    710

    Post imported post

    Case law does not change the text of the penal code. The text of the penal code can only be changed by the legislature. But case law is law, regardless. That's how our system works.

    And here is all the info on what is or is not loaded: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=103660


  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    MudCamper wrote:
    Case law does not change the text of the penal code. The text of the penal code can only be changed by the legislature. But case law is law, regardless. That's how our system works.
    100% correct there. I think it's rather ridiculous that the law in San Francisco where everybody has to lock up their guns is still on the books despite the fact that it was ruled unconstitutional, but it's there nonetheless.

    One good thing that this system lets us see is the stubbornness of the political leaders. The obvious downside is that the average citizen needs to know more than he/she should in order to comply with the law, which is truly unfortunate.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Red Bluff, California, USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    No, the penal code definition of loaded has been slightly modified by People v. Clark. In People v. Clark an unloaded shotgun with live rounds attached to the buttstock in what I believe is called a sidesaddle. The court ruled that while the rounds were attached to the gun, and thus meeting the definition of loaded according to the penal code, that the gun wasn't actually loaded.

    So because of People v. Clark you can have a round taped to your gun and you cannot be found guilty of having a loaded firearm. You cannot have a round which is in a place which it can be fired. This includes having a round in the chamber (obviously) or a round in a magazine which is in the firearm.
    Now that we have incorporation of the 2A...it seems it might be beneficial for us to challenge this. To me a position from which it can be fired, is in the chamber itself. A bullet can be fired from the chamber of a firearm, it cannot be fired from the magazine/clip of said firearm. It can only be either unloaded from said magazine/clip, or loaded into said firearm from the magazine/clip.

    I don't want to be the test case but I don't see why we cant carry with a loaded magazine and empty chamber. In that condition it meets the requirements of an unloaded firearm via CA Fish and Game code.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    camsoup wrote:
    Now that we have incorporation of the 2A...it seems it might be beneficial for us to challenge this. To me a position from which it can be fired, is in the chamber itself. A bullet can be fired from the chamber of a firearm, it cannot be fired from the magazine/clip of said firearm. It can only be either unloaded from said magazine/clip, or loaded into said firearm from the magazine/clip.

    I don't want to be the test case but I don't see why we cant carry with a loaded magazine and empty chamber. In that condition it meets the requirements of an unloaded firearm via CA Fish and Game code.
    I don't see how incorporation affects the definition of loaded. Keep in mind that the current case law clarifies BOTH the "loaded" and "attached in any manner" to include was that are able to load the firearm in the conventional sense. The case did NOT strike down the "attached in any way" part; it simply clarified that "in any way" was meant to encompass unconventional means of loading a firearm (jury rigged feeding devices).

    So, challenging the statutory definition of loaded is fruitless, as the legislature clearly intended to prohibit a "loaded" magazine being inserted in a way that allows loading of the firearm.

    However, fear not, as we have Heller.

    In the Heller decision, SCOTUS addressed the issue of DC requiring firearms to be locked up or disassembled. The court stated that such requirements are violations of the 2nd Amendment, as it thwarts the intended use of the firearms. In the same way, I think the courts will agree that keeping a firearm unloaded is a similar thwarting of the purpose of self defense.

    Hopefully we'll see this challenged soon. I encourage everybody to donate to CalGuns Foundation and Madison Society. Include your sentiments that we want them to go to work on the loaded weapons and school zones prohibitions.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •