• 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.

Is the gun loaded by the PC definition of loaded?

bigtoe416

bigtoe416

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

Couldn't we add a few more boxes and have a complete open carry flowchart?

Say we add "In a state park?" to the top, followed by "in an incorporated area?", branching into the loaded section that is here for yes and no asking "in a place where it is legal to discharge a weapon". After the loaded check we can check to see if the person is within 1000' of a school...and I think that might be about it.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

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

bigtoe416 wrote:
Couldn't we add a few more boxes and have a complete open carry flowchart?

Say we add "In a state park?" to the top, followed by "in an incorporated area?", branching into the loaded section that is here for yes and no asking "in a place where it is legal to discharge a weapon". After the loaded check we can check to see if the person is within 1000' of a school...and I think that might be about it.
Click to expand...
I think you're on to something here. The first box or two should be to determine if the person is even in a location where 12031(e) checks would be permissible. This is logical, and also serves the purpose of emphasizing that "e" checks are not permissible in some instances.

As introduced, the sole purpose of this chart is to address the definition(s) of "loaded". So, I don't think we should muddle it with state parks, school zones, etc, unless we're changing that purpose to "is the firearm possession legal?" (Which I think might be a fantastic idea - I might work on something like that tomorrow...)
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

deforcer wrote:
Also, hunting.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is, your long gun can be both loaded and unloaded at the same time, according to PC vs F&G. You can be in violation of PC 12031 while not in violation of FG 2006. This area of law is not black and white, due to the fact that the "prohibited area" language can be triggered in unusual ways.
 
D

deforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
38
Location
, California, USA
imported post

MudCamper wrote:
deforcer wrote:
Also, hunting.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is, your long gun can be both loaded and unloaded at the same time, according to PC vs F&G. You can be in violation of PC 12031 while not in violation of FG 2006. This area of law is not black and white, due to the fact that the "prohibited area" language can be triggered in unusual ways.
Click to expand...
Is it inherently ambiguous (according to the law) or merely complicated?

I thought there was some exception to the loaded laws for people engaged in othehwise lawful hunting and target shooting activities.

(And not just for long guns but handguns too. ILOC a handgunwhen I hunt, copper bullets and all.)
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

deforcer wrote:
I thought there was some exception to the loaded laws for people engaged in othehwise lawful hunting and target shooting activities.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There is an exception to 12025, concealed. But not for 12031 (loaded). The simple fact is, usually when you are hunting, you are in a non-prohibited area of unincorporated territory. But let's say you are within 150 yards of a camp ground in a NF. In that case 12031 still applies. The simple way to deal with this is to not even consider FG 2006. You've likely already violated 12031 by the time you violate 2006.

But then there is 12031(i), which is a bit of an anomaly. Rather than rehash it, I'll link to a CGN post where I've discussed it before:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2711944&postcount=46

What about heading away/to your truck? I hike in The Angeles Forest and most times do not park in trail heads but just pull of the road. When walking back to my truck I keep my shotgun chambered in the off chance that somebody is doing something they shouldn't. Do I need to have a clear chamber once within 150 feet of the road?

If it is a designated road, technically, per CA PC 12031 and CFR 36 CFR 261.10 (d) you need to empty the shotgun on or adjacent to the road, and not just clear the chamber, but empty the magazine. Since the tubular magazine is attached (I assume) it must also be unloaded to meet the definition. Again, this is per CA PC. Per Fish and Game code section 2006 you need only empty the chamber.

What does all this conflicting code mean? In all probability it means that a Game Warden would only care if you have a round in the chamber, and a forest service LEO probably doesn't even care if it's loaded, since according to CFR you just can't be shooting there. But if you ran into a gung-ho sheriff's deputy he might cite you for 12031.

Now if you are hunting, then you would seem to be able to keep the rounds in the magazine. F&G code only requires you to remove the round from the chamber near the road. And 12031 contains this:
Click to expand...
Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from carrying a loaded firearm in an area within an incorporated city while engaged in hunting, provided that the hunting at that place and time is not prohibited by the city council.
Click to expand...
Now this exemption refers specifically to incorporated city, but that is probably because when the law was drafted nobody assumed 12031 would even apply on a country road in unincorporated territory (which it does now due to shooting prohibitions triggering the "prohibited area" language). It would stand to reason that this exemption would therefore also extend to unincorporated territory. Of course, this is opinion and opinions vary!

Furhter, if you are hunting, or using any hunting related code exemptions, you need to watch out for the lead ammo ban.
Click to expand...

This is in my Firearms in Forests and Parks thread:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457
 
D

deforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
38
Location
, California, USA
imported post

MudCamper wrote:
Not exactly.
Click to expand...
Then this should definitely be part of the flow chart. (It may end up being as complicated as the AW chart.)

I have a pretty good idea where I can and can't shoot (do we need a flow chart for that too?)and I'm inferring from the above that, as a general rule, I should unload (at least clearing the chamber if not removing ammo from the gun)when I'm in an area where I can't shoot. Mostly I do that, e.g. unloading as I approach the vehicle,but not always with the strict care that I would exercise in town.
 
B

Bull Frog

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
216
Location
Sunnyvale, California, USA
imported post

Has anyone heard about the new federal law that allows carrying weapons (concealed, as I recall)in national parks? I don't remember when it becomes effective. Probably sometime next year. Google it. I read about it in the newspaper about two months ago. Apparently, the line item (read pork)was squeezed in; you know, some congressman got his way with an intern, and let it slip in. That's politics in Washington DC. But for once in our favor. Wow! You got to love pork fat :lol:

Bull Frog :celebrate
 
B

Bull Frog

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
216
Location
Sunnyvale, California, USA
imported post

Interestng, but I remember a section from the firearms safety test for California. It says something like this: While at your campsite (designated as your current home) you may arm yourself as you see fit, concealed or openly carrying.

Of course, your camp site can't be the hobo jungle under the overpass in downtown LA. It probably refers to counties with a population less than 200,000. Or cities that further muddy the waters with local legislation. What if you are asleep under a tree with a gun in some one horse town with an ignorant local deputy that can't spell school, and never graduated from one?

Bottom line? UOC in California? Expect trouble.

Far more public education is needed before one can excercise the right to legally carry a firearm. Ideally, this would begin with educating the only class of citizens allowed to carry firearms - LEOs.
 
C

CA_Libertarian

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

Bull Frog wrote:
Has anyone heard about the new federal law that allows carrying weapons (concealed, as I recall)in national parks? I don't remember when it becomes effective. Probably sometime next year. Google it. I read about it in the newspaper about two months ago. Apparently, the line item (read pork)was squeezed in; you know, some congressman got his way with an intern, and let it slip in. That's politics in Washington DC. But for once in our favor. Wow! You got to love pork fat :lol:

Bull Frog :celebrate
Click to expand...
Yep, but only if you have a CCW permit.

Edit: I stand corrected.
 
MudCamper

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
Bull Frog wrote:
Has anyone heard about the new federal law that allows carrying weapons (concealed, as I recall)in national parks? I don't remember when it becomes effective. Probably sometime next year. Google it. I read about it in the newspaper about two months ago. Apparently, the line item (read pork)was squeezed in; you know, some congressman got his way with an intern, and let it slip in. That's politics in Washington DC. But for once in our favor. Wow! You got to love pork fat :lol:

Bull Frog :celebrate
Click to expand...
Yep, but only if you have a CCW permit.

And this was just recently made illegal, so this is just rewinding the clock about a year. Not a huge victory, especially considering the horrible legislation we had to swallow to get it passed. The average NRA member was advised to count it as a major victory. IMO it was a horrible tradeoff.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the old rule change (Bush order) with the recent new legislation, which was inserted into the credit card bill (and signed into law by Obama).

The Bush order (which was blocked by a court) would have allowed licensed CCW in National Parks. The new legislation (HR627) allows carry in National Parks per state law. This will become effective end of February 2010. It will make the National Parks the same as National Forests with regard to UOC in California. Now IMO the NPS will ban shooting in the Parks, which is within their authority, but they cannot ban carry or possession anymore. We will still be able to UOC.

This and much more is all covered in my Firearms in Forests and Parks thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=186457 ) but of course, nobody ever bothers to click on a link here (as evidenced by the fact that I already posted this info in this very thread).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top