unloaded vs. loaded....
But that is so stupid and ridiculous!
Carrying unloaded makes no sense.
How is an unloaded firearm going to protect me and my family?
I mean, everyone knows you are supposed to carry loaded.
Common sense tells you a gun is supposed to be loaded, if it is not then it is worthless; making you basically defenseless.
AGAIN, I'm not a lawyer, and therefore I cannot give legal advice.
I had a friend (until his untimely demise) who was very interested in this, and related, subjects.
Steve had once told me, and explained the rationale, which I shall relate, that if you are going to
BEAT someone with a gun, it should
ALWAYS be a loaded gun.
(Again >presumably< under CA >and perhaps other< law) The concept involves the application of the maximum potential force of the weapon in question VS less than maximum force. This is usually only useful if you are being charged with something, but it is useful knowledge nonetheless...
If you beat someone with an unloaded gun you are effectively using the maximum force of the weapon you have at your disposal. You will therefore be guilty of the maximum possible charge.
On the OTHER hand...
If you beat someone with a LOADED gun, you are using much less than the possible maximum force that your weapon may exert and therefore it shows that you are exercising reasonable restraint and if you are charged with something, the fact you were using less than the maximum force of the weapon you possessed may result in lesser charges or perhaps no charges. "Yes sir! I coulda blown him away, but I just smacked him upside the head!" can become a reasonable defense if your gun is LOADED.
This information to to be filed and considered "For what its worth!" (Paul Harvey, {God Bless} Good Day!)