• 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.

I'm going throught California to Arizona

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
well,,,,

Have someone time you on a drill where you stop your car, get out your firearm and return effective fire. Then do it where you also have to grab ammo. It really isn't that much more time or effort, when you look at the entire chain of events.

I also don't consider a handgun a suitable weapon for this event in the first place. If you have time to dig a pistol out of the trunk, you have time to get a rifle.

Make your own decision. If the objective is to stay out of prison, the extra 10 seconds that might involved in opening a second case to get your ammo is cheap insurance.

I guess it depends on what you think is more likely, having to defend yourself on the street or having to defend yourself in court. If you figure the street is the greatest threat, why would you unload the gun in the first place?

Cite please.

me too!!! cite please, oh please???
to DVC all ia can say is HA HA HA HA ? are you for real??
how old are you??
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
Cite please.

In California v. Littlejohn (1979), the case was nol prossed because there was no direct contact between firearm (on sling, over shoulder) and loaded magazine (in pocket).

The police department, which wanted to keep the confiscated rifle (an HK91), argued that the rifle was loaded under 12031 PC, citing a case in which a handgun was found to be loaded when it and ammunition had been stuffed into a sock in the pocket of the arrestee.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
me too!!! cite please, oh please???
to DVC all ia can say is HA HA HA HA ? are you for real??
how old are you??

Yes, I am for real, I'm 53, have been involved in the gun-rights battle since 1972 (through 1986 that was in California, dealing with their silly laws and precedents), was involved in the case that I cite above, and I served as a judge.

Are you for real? How old are you, that you haven't learned how to use your Shift key?
 

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
In California v. Littlejohn (1979), the case was nol prossed because there was no direct contact between firearm (on sling, over shoulder) and loaded magazine (in pocket).

The police department, which wanted to keep the confiscated rifle (an HK91), argued that the rifle was loaded under 12031 PC, citing a case in which a handgun was found to be loaded when it and ammunition had been stuffed into a sock in the pocket of the arrestee.

A cite to one case about a rifle that I think you seem to say was not predded is not multiple does set precedent.
If there was in fact a case about a pistol and a guys sock it would be nice to see that cite as well.
 

DVC

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
1,185
Location
City? Who wants to live in a CITY?, Nevada, USA
A cite to one case about a rifle that I think you seem to say was not predded is not multiple does set precedent.
If there was in fact a case about a pistol and a guys sock it would be nice to see that cite as well.

It was nol prossed solely because there was no DIRECT contact between ammunition and rifle. The prosecutor said "If it had even been together in a bag, it would have gone, like that case a couple of years ago with the gun and bullets being carried in a sock!" The prosecuting attorney was NOT happy, and it was the strict letter of the law that ended the case. That same strict letter got the gun-in-a-sock guy CONVICTED in the same county.

You seem to believe that there must be multiple cases to set precedent. This is not true -- all it takes is ONE case. And YOU can be that case, if you're our lucky winner!

Thus, I'm going to end my participation in this thread with my standard suggestion that you are free to try it for yourself, and report back to us how it goes.
 
Last edited:

Vegassteve

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
1,763
Location
Las Vegas NV, ,
You seem to believe that there must be multiple cases to set precedent. This is not true -- all it takes is ONE case. And YOU can be that case, if you're our lucky winner!

.

No you used the term in your post COURTS. Which means more than once. You gave one case. Again you cite ONE case. And what is the sock case? Cite to that please?

Oh wait I see since you were proved wrong you decided to pack up your toys and leave.
 

ccwinstructor

Centurion
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
919
Location
Yuma, Arizona, USA
The California Definition of Loaded has be changed by case law

It was nol prossed solely because there was no DIRECT contact between ammunition and rifle. The prosecutor said "If it had even been together in a bag, it would have gone, like that case a couple of years ago with the gun and bullets being carried in a sock!" The prosecuting attorney was NOT happy, and it was the strict letter of the law that ended the case. That same strict letter got the gun-in-a-sock guy CONVICTED in the same county.

You seem to believe that there must be multiple cases to set precedent. This is not true -- all it takes is ONE case. And YOU can be that case, if you're our lucky winner!

Thus, I'm going to end my participation in this thread with my standard suggestion that you are free to try it for yourself, and report back to us how it goes.

Here is the citation from calguns.net:

FAQ first:

Yes, ammunition may be carried in the same container as the gun – loose ammunition or ammunition in ammo boxes does not make a gun loaded, because the ammunition is NOT “placed into a position from which it can be fired”.

Yes, you may transport loaded magazines and speed loaders, so long as they are not inserted into the magazine well or cylinder of the firearm. That does not make a gun loaded, because the ammunition carried that way is NOT “placed into a position from which it can be fired”.

No, a loaded magazine is not the same as a loaded weapon, and possession of a weapon and a loaded magazine for that weapon does not, necessarily, mean you have a loaded weapon.

Anyone who asserts something contrary to the above 3 points is simply wrong. That does not mean you cannot be arrested by uninformed or badly trained law enforcement, or charged with the crime of carrying a loaded weapon by an uninformed or politically motivated prosecutor. It does mean that, if it goes to court and you have good representation, the prosecution should lose on the law.

Your comfort level may lead you to do more than the law requires.

EXPLANATION:
California law has several usages of the term loaded in the Penal code and elsewhere.

The most common definition of loaded is from Penal Code 12031
Quote:
12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.

[Since this post concentrates on loaded, other parts of 12031 are omitted, including the definitions of other terms in (a)(1).]

(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.
THIS 12031(g) DEFINITION HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY CASE LAW!!!

The case is People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 available at this link.

The key paragraphs of the decision are these:
Quote:
The term "loaded" has a commonly understood meaning: "to put a load or charge in (a device or piece of equipment) a gun" or "to put a load on or in a carrier, device, or container; esp: to insert the charge or cartridge into the chamber of a firearm." (Webster's New Collegiate Dict. (1976) p. 674.) Under the commonly understood meaning of the term "loaded," a firearm is "loaded" when a shell or cartridge has been placed into a position from which it can be fired; the shotgun is not "loaded" if the shell or cartridge is stored elsewhere and not yet placed in a firing position. The shells here were placed in a separate storage compartment of the shotgun and were not yet "loaded" as the term is commonly understood.

There is nothing in Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 which indicates the Legislature did not intend to use the term "loaded" in its commonly understood meaning.

We note Penal Code section 12031 states it is defining the term "loaded" "for the purposes of this section" (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (g)); it does not state it is applicable to a Health and Safety Code offense nor does Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 refer to the Penal Code definition.

Second, even if we were to accept the Attorney General's assertion that the definition of "loaded" contained in Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (g) applies to Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subdivision (a), we would still conclude the shotgun here was not loaded.

[2] A statute "must be given a reasonable and commonsense interpretation consistent with the apparent purpose and intention of the Legislature, practical rather than technical in nature, and which, when applied, will result in wise policy rather than mischief or absurdity. [Citations.]" (Beaty v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 897, 902 [231 Cal.Rptr. 128].) "The words must be construed in context in light of the nature and obvious purpose of the statute where they appear. [Citation.]" (Decker v. City of Imperial Beach (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 349, 354 [257 Cal.Rptr. 356]; Lakin v. Watkins Associated Industries (1993) 6 Cal.4th 644, 659 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 109, 863 P.2d 179].)

Given the examples are all consistent with an intent to use the common meaning of "loaded," it follows the Legislature's use of the phrase "attached in any manner" to the firearm was intended to encompass a situation where a shell or cartridge might be attached to a firearm or "loaded" for firing by some unconventional method. The phrase does not demonstrate a clear Legislative intent to deem a firearm loaded no matter how a shell is attached to a firearm; in particular, it does not indicate a clear intent to deem a gun "loaded" when the ammunition, as here, is in a storage compartment which is not equivalent to either a magazine or clip and from which the ammunition cannot be fired. Our conclusion that the Legislature intended "loaded" as used in Penal Code section 12031 to reflect the common definition is supported by the court in People v. Heffner (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 643, 650 [139 Cal.Rptr. 45], which reached the same conclusion …
So, following Clark, loaded means “a firearm is "loaded" when a shell or cartridge has been placed into a position from which it can be fired”. This is NOT restricted to shotguns.

NEW CASE LAW COULD CHANGE THIS – again, consult your own paid attorney for specifics regarding any legal action.
 
Top