| Author | Post |
|---|
Robin47
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 12:13 am |
|
Got it !
How about driving while OCing ?
If the loaded mag, on one side and the empty gun on the other side of your hip.
While driving, other then through a School zone and govenors area in Sac.
Thats legal right ?
I believe it is. Robin47
|
nukechaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 12:27 am |
|
Robin47 wrote: Got it !
How about driving while OCing ?
If the loaded mag, on one side and the empty gun on the other side of your hip.
While driving, other then through a School zone and govenors area in Sac.
Thats legal right ?
I believe it is. Robin47
Penal Code 626.9 is pretty clear. Firearms, brought within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school (inclusive), must be locked in the trunk or in a lockable container.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html
You are correct. UOC while driving is ok, just not near schools or other "sterile" areas.
Many folks keep a lock box on the passenger seat adn if they know they are approaching a school zone (within 1,000 feet) they just toss their gun and magazine into the box and close and lock it. Once clear of the area, you can unlock the box and re-holster your gear.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 02:09 am |
|
I thought the OP question was the following.
Now the question I pose to the forum is, is the locked passenger area of a car a locked container? It is fully enclosed area (a strange "container," but certainly secure) locked by a key lock. So is a locked passenger area a locked container providing that the windows are up and the only valid ways of entry are either illegal or with the car key? I can't see why it isn't.
Thread drift went off into camper shells and covered magazines but the original question was as state above. Just excuse me for trying to answer the original question which was exactly what the DC sniper was doing. He wasn't shooting out of a camper shell with or without an opening back window of a pickup or trying to hide his magazines under a towel so someone could't see them from outside. he was shooting from inside a car that could be locked.
As for the looking through the windows to see you gun what if you had it in a glass case that was locked. According to some of you that would make a difference.
|
coolusername2007
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 05:12 am |
|
nukechaser wrote: Robin47 wrote: Got it !
How about driving while OCing ?
If the loaded mag, on one side and the empty gun on the other side of your hip.
While driving, other then through a School zone and govenors area in Sac.
Thats legal right ?
I believe it is. Robin47
Penal Code 626.9 is pretty clear. Firearms, brought within 1,000 feet of a K-12 school (inclusive), must be locked in the trunk or in a lockable container.
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/626.9.html
You are correct. UOC while driving is ok, just not near schools or other "sterile" areas.
Many folks keep a lock box on the passenger seat adn if they know they are approaching a school zone (within 1,000 feet) they just toss their gun and magazine into the box and close and lock it. Once clear of the area, you can unlock the box and re-holster your gear.
Looking for a little clarification as I am researching OC'ing, but am surrounded by public and private schools (they are everywhere!). While driving through the school zone, would you have to lock away your loaded magazine? Or is it enough to lock only the gun away and continue to open carry (holstered) the loaded magazine?
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 10:59 pm |
|
coolusername2007 wrote: Looking for a little clarification as I am researching OC'ing, but am surrounded by public and private schools (they are everywhere!). While driving through the school zone, would you have to lock away your loaded magazine? Or is it enough to lock only the gun away and continue to open carry (holstered) the loaded magazine?
First, in the legal sense a magazine cannot be "loaded" - only a firearm can. I prefer to refer to a magazine as "full" or "charged" to prevent confusion with the legal term "loaded". I don't mean to nit pick, but I think it's important to be clear when we're discussing the law.
626.9 does not prohibit magazines or clips in school zones. It only prohibits pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person (anything not a long gun). We do have some bad case law that says concealing a magazine can be a violation of 12025 (in some cases), but I don't believe that would apply here.
If you're worried about it just lock up the mags too.
|
coolusername2007
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 01:15 am |
|
Thanks CA_Libertarian. I appreciate the terminology correction, and don't consider it nit picking. You are correct, clarity is key. I'm looking at this from a practical standpoint and would be interested in knowing what other OC'ers are doing while driving through town. Are you open carrying while driving and locking/unlocking as you go in and out of school zones. Or do you simply lock while rolling and unlock and OC upon arrival at your final destination? Obviously the latter seems more practical, but I guess it depends on your perspective and even perhaps the friendliness of the neighborhood you're traveling through.
Obviously, I have not started open carrying but really like the idea as well as expressing my freedom and support of our 2nd amendment. However, I equally like the idea of not getting arrested. So I am proceeding cautiously.
|
coolusername2007
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 01:32 am |
|
| By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that while driving you cannot have a full magazine that is concealed or even locked away in case.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 02:05 am |
|
If they cant see it in a locked container you have nothing to worry about UNLESS they have a search warrant
|
bigtoe416
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 05:08 am |
|
coolusername2007 wrote: By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that while driving you cannot have a full magazine that is concealed or even locked away in case.
You can have full magazines that are locked up. When I go to the range I load my magazines before leaving my house to save time once I get there. Perfectly legal.
Concealed magazines are a no-no thanks to People v. Hale
|
coolusername2007
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 06:40 am |
|
OK, just to recap, since I'm new and slow ;-) While driving around town...
Open full magazine = legal
Locked up full magazine = legal
Concealed full magazine = illegal
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 9th, 2009 02:50 am |
|
bigtoe416 wrote: coolusername2007 wrote: By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that while driving you cannot have a full magazine that is concealed or even locked away in case.
You can have full magazines that are locked up. When I go to the range I load my magazines before leaving my house to save time once I get there. Perfectly legal.
Concealed magazines are a no-no thanks to People v. Hale
People v. Hale involved a visible incomplete weapon that was missing an integral component. The component was found that made the visible weapon complete, which was the magazine that was hidden. The case does not involve a visible complete gun (one with an empty mag) and an additional mag that was full but not visible. Just a point of clarification.
|
bigtoe416
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 9th, 2009 05:24 am |
|
Good point. I'm always goofing up that case law. The ruling says the following:
In our opinion concealment of an essential component of a visible weapon, when done in such a fashion as to make the weapon readily available for use as a firearm, presents a threat to public order comparable to concealment of the entire firearm and falls within the prohibition of section 12025.
Sons of Liberty owns me.
|
CA_Libertarian
State Researcher
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10th, 2009 10:42 am |
|
Due to the language of Hale, the concealed mag issue only applies under certain cirumstances. The following two elements must exist for 12025 to apply to a mag:
1. It is concealed in a way that makes for "easily completing" the firearm.
2. No exemptions to 12025 apply. (e.g. locked container)
If all you possess is the magazine, you can conceal any way you want. If your firearm is concealed in a locked container, it would be hard to say concealing a mag in your pocket makes it somehow easier to "complete" the locked up firearm.
Now, there's the idea that having an empty magazine in your firearm "completes" the weapon for the purposes of Hale. While this is logical, I don't see any reason the court would be encouraged (let alone required) to interpret it that way. IMO, don't be a test case for the "but I had an empty mag in the well" defense.
|
stuckinchico
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10th, 2009 11:28 am |
|
SPELL this out NOT in a position capable of being fired Id love to see an officer fire a weapon that has an empty mag. We should all know what happens right....... I do believe that is the test standard that the court has applied to that. just like solely possessing a loaded mag in your pocket with no firearm in your immediate control mag is worthless and i believe under that definition not a weapon but this is just my interpretations reading all these bloody attorney footnotes Talk about a labyrinth.. Geez SPEAK ENGLISH
Last edited on Fri Jul 10th, 2009 11:29 am by stuckinchico
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10th, 2009 05:03 pm |
|
CA_Libertarian wrote: Due to the language of Hale, the concealed mag issue only applies under certain cirumstances. The following two elements must exist for 12025 to apply to a mag:
1. It is concealed in a way that makes for "easily completing" the firearm.
2. No exemptions to 12025 apply. (e.g. locked container)
If all you possess is the magazine, you can conceal any way you want. If your firearm is concealed in a locked container, it would be hard to say concealing a mag in your pocket makes it somehow easier to "complete" the locked up firearm.
Now, there's the idea that having an empty magazine in your firearm "completes" the weapon for the purposes of Hale. While this is logical, I don't see any reason the court would be encouraged (let alone required) to interpret it that way. IMO, don't be a test case for the "but I had an empty mag in the well" defense.
True. If you have a visible firearm, with an empty magazine in the mag well, and a concealed full magazine easily accessible, it would be very easy to just drop the empty and slap in the full magazine and you then have a fully functional firearm, which is the heart of the People v. Hale arguement. A concealed full magazine within easy reach of the firearm that it fits into equals a concealed firearm.
|
Decoligny
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10th, 2009 05:07 pm |
|
stuckinchico wrote: SPELL this out NOT in a position capable of being fired Id love to see an officer fire a weapon that has an empty mag. We should all know what happens right....... I do believe that is the test standard that the court has applied to that. just like solely possessing a loaded mag in your pocket with no firearm in your immediate control mag is worthless and i believe under that definition not a weapon but this is just my interpretations reading all these bloody attorney footnotes Talk about a labyrinth.. Geez SPEAK ENGLISH
People v. Hale has NOTHING in it that deals with whether or not a firearm is LOADED. That is where the "in a position capable of being fired comes in, in 12031 not 12025.
People v. Hale simply says paraphrased) that if the concealed magazine can make the gun functional, via easy access to both the gun and the full magazine, then the concealed magazine is the equivalent of a concealed firearm.
|
Sons of Liberty
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 11th, 2009 05:44 am |
|
I think that there is a subtlety I was trying to bring out. I didn't do a very good job. The court stated,
"On the facts of the case we conclude that Officer Price had reasonable cause to search the front seat of Hale's automobile and that consequently his discovery of contraband was an incident of a lawful search...The facts known to the officer at the time of the search gave him reasonable cause to suspect Hale was committing a crime, viz. unlicensed carrying of a firearm concealed in a vehicle...Only partial concealment of a firearm is required...One portion of the automatic pistol, the housing and barrel, was visible, and it was reasonable for the officer to suspect concealment nearby of the remaining portion of the firearm, the automatic clip and ammunition."
So, if Officer Price came up to a UOC'er with his semi-automatic (with empty magazine inserted) laying openly on the dashboard, he would not have the "reasonable cause" discussed in People v. Hale to conduct a further search of the vehicle. If he conducted a further search and found nothing, it seems to me that it would be an unlawful search. If he conducted a further search and he found a non-empty magazine concealed, it would be an unlawful search and the evidence would be suppressed.
Please correct me if I'm missing something.
But, I agree that its not worth the headache of carrying a non-empty magazine concealed.
(Edited font)
Last edited on Sat Jul 11th, 2009 07:42 am by Sons of Liberty
|
Current time is 09:12 am | Page:   1 2 |
|
