Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Restrictions requiring unloaded or disassembled firearms.

  1. #1
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    I decided it was better to continue this topic on its own thread rather than continue to highjack another topic- This discussion originated here....camsoup wrote:


    ConditionThree wrote:
    camsoup wrote:
    nukechaser wrote:
    I believe the salient point is that there isn't ammo "placed into a position from which it can be fired" if you have an empty magazine inserted into the magazine well.

    However, make sure your full magazine is plainly visible. This is accomplished usually in a magazine carrier/pouch on your belt, just like your pistol. THIS IS IMPORTANT! A magazine is an integral part of a pistol. Carrying it with ammo in it in your pocket could potentially bring a concealed weapons violation (p.c. 12025).

    If you are carrying a revolver you may carry speed loaders, bullets, etc. in your pocket without concern, 'cuz a speed loaded or moon clips are not an integral part of a revolver.

    I wonder if some DA's in this state would try to argue that a cartridge is an integral part of a firearm, therefore making it illegal to even conceal moonclips, speedloaders, or loose cartridges....really without a cartridge you don't by definition have a fire arm??? its hard to make it go bang without a round of ammunition.
    See- this is what I have been cogitating on. If the magazine is an integral part of a firearm and can be considered to be a 12025 "concealed weapon"- the same could be said of ammunition as the cartridges have as much to do with the firearm being a weapon as the magazine does. However, if it is not fully assembled and ready to fire, they can only be parts of a weapon... not a complete weapon outside being a makeshift bludgeon. So how then does the 2nd amendment apply to parts that are not assembled as an 'arm'? And if we are not allowed a fully assembled 'arm' what part of keep and bear are we able to practice?

    I suspect at some time in the future that requirements to maintain an incomplete weapon (ie: unloaded, disassembled, or absent from ammunition.) will be ruled unConstitutional with the arguement that withsome or all ofthe integral machinery/parts removed, it eliminates the ability to use arms as they were intended since they cease to be mechanically effective.
    I agree this would be a huge win for everyone....hopefully it would allow everyone to have a Loaded weapon, because without ammunition is it really a firearm?? With the right case I think this would be able to be settle with good case law....who wants to be the test subject? :what:

    No one wants to be the test subject- however, I believe this will have to come up with any challenge to 12031, 626.9, 171 (b), or any yet to be revealed legislative redefinition making possession of both ammunition and the firearm by which it is discharged the equivelent to a loaded weapon...

    SCOTUS ruled in Hellerthat requirements to lock up or disassemble a firearm in the home are unconstitutional. Now the trick is finding a means to extend 'keep and bear'beyond our home- this would eliminate the locked case requirement of 626.9.

    The real problem in forwarding the concept that an unloaded firearm is a 'disassembled' firearm is that by definition (Calif PC), a firearm only need be designed as a weapon and expel a projectile with an explosion or other combustion.So we have laws stuck on this idea that a 'reciever' is a 'firearm', even if there is no other mechanism or aprojectile to discharge. I believe there must be a way to redefine 'firearm' through case law so that it cannot be construed to mean anything other than a completed weapon- one that includes all of its integral parts, including ammunition.

    I suspect this test subject would come about as a result of a police contact in unicorporated territory where discharge is not regulated by local ordinance. If authorities should demand an (e) check under circumstances where there is no violation of the law, the question would certainly be raised as to whether 12031 was even constitutional.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

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

    Post imported post

    Once we know for sure Heller is staying incorporated (after the en banc BS is over) we will probably see a challenge to the "criminal storage" statute.

    Sadly, I predict this challenge will be "low hanging fruit" compared to a challenge of 12031...

    ETA: somehow missed part of your post on my first read-through, specifically the part about applying Heller to 626.9.

    I think you may be on to something there. And it's no stretch of logic. Same goes for using it against 12031, as we've discussed ad nauseum.
    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.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506

    Post imported post

    On that 12031 check isnt there already precedents in US supreme Court?? Why isnt it being followed??

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sacramento, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    It's such a complicated mess they've made for us. So many statutes. By the time one gets decided for or agin' us, there's a few more added to the roster.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    stuckinchico wrote:
    On that 12031 check isnt there already precedents in US supreme Court?? Why isnt it being followed??
    There's no precedent striking down 12031(e) specifically.

    However, Terry addresses the issue of warrantless searches very thoroughly.

    The problem is that in order to get good case law on 12031, we need a well-funded person to undergo prosecution, conviction, and appeal up to a fairly high level. (The CA Appeals Ct already has upheld 12031(e), so it would have to be appealed upward from there.)
    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
  •