Letter from the CA DOJ

[AJAX22]

A while back we were having a 'spirited discussion' regarding the legality of transporting a firearm in conjunction with a loaded clip of ammunition in the state of California.

I had already received the standard 'subject to the whims of the DA for prosecution' and was very surprised to find a new letter in my inbox today.

here it is,

I'm going to go put a rifle and LOADED mag in the trunk of my car today (I just can't attach them )

Dear Mr. *******,

Your request for information has been received and reviewed. Pursuant to
subsection (g) of section 12031 of the California Penal Code 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.

Q: Is it ok to transport a loaded magazine in conjunction with a
unloaded firearm. provided that the magazine is not attached to the
firearm at the time of transport?
A: Yes, so long as the magazine is not attached to the firearm in any
manner, above and beyond that it would be wise to not store the loaded
magazine within the same locked container as the unloaded firearm. The
same would apply to the loaded speedloader and revolver.

Q: Is it ok to keep a rifle in the trunk of your car along with a
seperate locked container that contains a loaded magazine?
A: In actuality unloaded long guns are not required to be transported
within a locked container inside of a vehicle as unloaded handguns are.
So the answer to your question is, Yes.
Q: Do stripper clips constitute a loaded magazine? as the clip does not
at any time attach to the rifle during function. (the specific example
would be that of the SKS)
A: Yes, as do belt-fed ammunition links.

Q: On a second debate that is going on is whether or not a legal
firearm, properly stored has to be disclosed during a traffic stop.

(1.) Is refusal to answer grounds for a probable cause search of the
vehicle?
A: We are not qualified to answer legal questions such as this, please
consult an attorney.

(2.) Are CCW permit holders required to reveal that they have a firearm
in the vehicle?
A: We are not qualified to answer legal questions such as this, please
consult an attorney as this seems to deal with Search & Seizure laws.

Sincerely,

Nate Barrell, Analyst
Firearms Division

My intention is to comply with the law without going 'above and beyond' and so I am going to keep a little something in the trunk for a rainy day. with a half dozen mags sitting next to it.

To those of you who I have previously argued with as to what 'attached thereof' refers to in regards to california firearms law. I stand happily corrected. you were right and I was wrong.

We can legally keep the loaded mag for the pistol sitting next to the gun so long as its in a locked container, and long arms are not subject to any such regulation. we can keep those sitting in the vehicle next to us, so long as the mag is not physically in the rifle.

 

[up_onus]

sure glad

im sure glad i live in america, and not the Peoples Republic of California!

 

[AJAX22]

There are patriots everywhere, we may live behind the wire, but we're still americans, it still hurts when our rights get stepped on. We shouldn't have to give up our homes to enjoy our full liberties.

 

[UberPhLuBB]

im sure glad i live in america, and not the Peoples Republic of California!

And I'm sure glad I never have to run my heater or air conditioner, year round. I'm also glad I have every environment on Earth within 1 hour's drive. I'm also glad my state's economy is the fifth largest in the WORL... oh well you get the idea.

On topic posts would be nice. Back to the subject at hand;

Thanks for the clarification, Ajax. I was under the impression that ALL firearms needed to be transported in a locked container (or trunk). Nice to know I can save trunk space by throwing some rifles in the back seat.

 

[SomeKid]

And I'm sure glad I never have to run my heater or air conditioner, year round.

Not like you have a choice, you don't have power year around.

 

[UberPhLuBB]

Not like you have a choice, you don't have power year around.

I have lived in California my entire life. I have NEVER had power go out for any significant length of time. If someone hits a power pole it may go out for an hour, but the "rolling blackouts" you seem to be referencing do not affect the vast majority of the area.

In all my time living in California, my power has gone out 3, maybe 4 times. Ever. I would be extremely suspicious if you said you could beat that track record, anywhere in the country.

Enough with the California bashing. Seriously. This is the High Road. If you want to start state bashing, PM me. I've got some choice insults about Tennessee, but I'd rather keep them to myself and respect you as a fellow American.

 

[Librarian]

AJAX22, would you post this over at Calguns, please? I've been telling people this for years now...

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

I lived in California until late last year. I lived in the valley.

What most people don't realize is that California is as big as two, or even three, other states combined.

Geographically, most of California is more conservative than the majority of America. Just look at one of those Red/Blue maps, county by county, after an election is over.

Our problem is that the highest concentrations of people are in the communist sections of California. These sections (LA, San Fran, Sacramento, San Jose, etc.) dictate politics throughout the rest of the state.

The majority of kalifornians are just as sickened by what takes place as you. It's just that the majority are so scattered throughout the state that their vote doesn't count.

It's a tragedy of Greek proportions.

If they'd split into two states, Northern California and Southern California, I'd move back in an instant. Maybe. Well, I don't know. Probably not.

But you get my drift.

 

[Sawdust]

Good job pursuing those answers. Kudos to you.

I'm with you on that concept of keeping a little something in the trunk.

Sawdust

 

[up_onus]

since this topic isnt goin anywhere...

And I'm sure glad I never have to run my heater or air conditioner, year round. I'm also glad I have every environment on Earth within 1 hour's drive. I'm also glad my state's economy is the fifth largest in the WORL... oh well you get the idea.

1. There are many many places (including reno) where you dont have to run your heat/air all year....(thats just silly)
2. I guess I miss the ocean, but get world class ski resorts...you get that?
3. For such a great economy, why is the state government BROKE and have ARNOLD as a governer?
4. TAXES that WONT quit!!! gotta love those taxes huh?
5. Gun laws!!! look at that crap!
6. Earthquakes....
7. Rolling Blackouts....
8. the list goes on and on...

Cant I be happy I dont live in a socialist state???
is that ok? lol...just kiddin...

 

[SomeKid]

Uber,

My first post was meant as a lighthearted jab for chuckles. If you have some digs on my home state, feel free to launch them. It was ok to make jokes and laugh on THR last I checked.

On a more on topic note, that sucks for you guys. When I go to the tange tomorrow I will shoot a 30-rounder in memory of those who never will be able to.

 

[Gordon]

I have a Ca. CCW, When I didn't I carried a perfectly legal Semi pistol& mags in it's factory plastic box with an easy ripped open plastic lock with the mags loaded and not in gun. If you are clean and the gun registered to you it is legal. I carried AKs with loaded mags not in gun or touching on a shelf in my service trucks which was legal. I can live with that. BTW I legally own 2 pages of registurd 'assault rifles' and over 200 legal hi cap various mags . You just had to have your priorities right New kids today are gonna have to FIGHT for their rights, and gubbamint better not come for MY guns

 

[10-Ring]

Good to know...It's not like I routinely have a firearm in my vehicle, but when going to the range, this is good to know!

 

[AJAX22]

AJAX22, would you post this over at Calguns, please? I've been telling people this for years now...

I do not have a cal guns account yet (I will get one in the next few days or so, kinda buisy with school and an unreliable internet connection)

feel free to post the info yourself, or I can get to it next week.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Ajax, what the DOJ analyst said is what the law explicitly states. There is nothing new here, though it is good for the DOJ to acknowledge the law and not start making up something more restrictive. However, frankly the opinion of the DOJ isn't worth the eletricity it takes to send an email, as evidenced by their varying opinions on the OLL issue, and the fact that what actually happens to you and your firearms is usually dependent on the whims of the L.E.O who stops you, and the local DA.

 

[billwiese]

CreepingIncrementalism's correct.

Nathan Barrell is an 'analyst'. He's not a lawyer, not a sworn cop/agent, he's a glorified phone clerk/paper pusher. His opinions are worth less than the paper they're printed on.

[Hell, their own Deputy AG Alison Merrilees can barely forumulate a consistent opinion from week to week (nicely leaving us a huge paper trail useful for future endeavors/challenges...)]

Asking him for an answer and relying on it is akin to calling a phone clerk at the IRS for tax advice - see how far "but you guys said on the phone i could deduct..." goes. In this particular incident, what he wrote appears correct.



Bill Wiese
San Jose, CA

 

[Logan5]

I can't believe they allowed non-attorney staff to issue a legal opinion on statutory interpretation.
Print that out and save it, it's a legal document and like money in the bank. Have it notarized, even. Tape it to your rifle. You may now reasonably rely on it; the man is acting within his job function with the implied authority of the State in telling you this, and you have it on record.

I'm a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice, just friendly banter between fellow hobbyists. I am not admitted to practice law in your jurisdiction.

 

[gunsmith]

I was under the impression

that CA law is that a loaded mag is consisered attached if it
is in the vicinity of the gun.

Bill Weise or Jim March?

 

[wolf]

I was under the impression that CA law is that a loaded mag is considered attached if it is in the vicinity of the gun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

yeppers..that is my take on it also...of course it may read that way to some and not to others..thus the confusion...but i have asked so long time range shooters..there take is..error on the side of getting arrested..so the ammo is up front and the handguns are in the trunk.

even then..in a traffic stop..it will depend on the mood of the officer/the reason your stopped..etc..

laws & rights be dammed..and it seems to change in a heartbeat..to be honest..i feel that i am "hiding" my guns at times..because they are not "legal"

not to worry...i fight the feeling with 2" groups

wolf

 

[Librarian]

I was under the impression that CA law is that a loaded mag is considered attached if it is in the vicinity of the gun

Case law suggests this is incorrect:see People v. Clark

Thus, to the extent an ambiguity exists between whether the Legislature intended the term "loaded" to be used in its ordinary sense (i.e., a shell placed in a position ready to be fired) or to be used in an unusual sense (i.e., including a shell placed in a storage compartment from which it cannot be fired), we adopt the construction more favorable to Clark, i.e., that the term was intended to be used in its ordinary sense and that the shotgun here was not loaded.

Case is from John Machtinger's How to Own a Gun & Stay Out of Jail (California Edition), Chapter 2.

This does not mean that prudence may not dictate a very conservative approach - in fact, I do not carry loaded magazines when I go to a range. But AJAX22 got it from DOJ, I've seen it on the CHP web site - all 'civilian' evidence suggests it is not the law, in ordinary circumstances, that that the possessor has a 'loaded weapon' if he has a firearm and a loaded magazine NOT inserted in the magazine well. (Clark notes some of the unordinary circumstances.)

As usual

• don't argue with Officer Friendly
• consult a real California lawyer and pay for a binding legal opinion, if you like
• and, act in the way which you perceive is in your own best interests

 

[Rumpled]

There is also a seperate restriction if you are a known gang member.
In that case, one guy with a unloaded pistol, and another with a loaded magazine equals two guys in possession of a loaded gun.

 

[Librarian]

The other 'unordinary' circumstances besides gang member: a firearm is loaded if the firearm and unexpended ammunition are in the immediate possession of the same person for the offenses of bringing a "loaded" firearm into certain state governmental offices and residences of certain state officers and legislators and for the offense of carrying a loaded firearm with an intent to commit a felony.

Note that none of these three has anything to do with magazines - ammunition is enough, even if one has a semi-auto that needs a magazine but one does not have a magazine.

(Sorry about the degradation of the Findlaw link - the full spec for Clark is People v. Clark (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1147 , 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 99 if you care to register with Findlaw and chase down the text for yourself. I've been a registered user there for so long it's an effort to remember username/password - they're cached on my machine.)