Is my Mossberg 500 Cruiser a shotgun or is it not a shotgun in California?

[wfb18]

It appears that my 18.5" barreled Mossberg 500 Cruiser factory-made pistol-gripped "shotgun" technically is not and never was a shotgun, but rather just a Title 1 firearm. To have been a shotgun, it would have to have been "intended to be fired from the shoulder," according to 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (5).

I have four questions about the California Penal Code which uses the term "shotgun" without definition. I presume that the California Attorney General could simply conclude that California does not need to define the term "shotgun," and that California is entitled to use the same definition of "shotgun" in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (5).

"Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container. However, as with any firearm, nonconcealable firearms must be unloaded while they are being transported.

"California Penal Code section 12025 does not prevent a citizen of the United States over 18 years of age who is not lawfully prohibited from firearm possession, and who resides or is temporarily in California, from transporting by motor vehicle any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person provided the firearm is unloaded and stored in a locked container. The term "locked container" means a secure container which is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment. For more information, refer to California Penal Code Section 12026.1." (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php and also http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php)

So my four questions are:

Question One -- Is California entitled to use the same definition of "shotgun" in 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (5) without specifically stating so in the California Penal Code?

Question Two -- An unloaded 18.5" Mossberg 500 Cruiser which never had a stock and was never "intended to be fired from the shoulder" is legally a shotgun in California or is legally not a shotgun (just a Title 1 firearm) in California?

Question Three -- If an unloaded 18.5" Mossberg 500 Cruiser which never had a stock and was never "intended to be fired from the shoulder" is not a shotgun and therefore not a "nonconcealable firearm" in California, then would it be required to be transported in a locked container in California like any other pistol or revolver?

Question Four -- Is the following decision still legally upheld in California? "In the case of People v. Clark (1996) a shotgun shell attached to the shotgun, although not chambered or placed in a position where it was able to be fired, was declared to be legal under California law and the charge of having a loaded firearm against Clark was dismissed."

[RomanDad]

1. California specifically defines "shotgun" in California Penal Code 12020 (21) As used in this section, a "shotgun" means a weapon designed
or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the
shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the
energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a
smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single
projectile for each pull of the trigger.


2. There is no clear answer to this question, and the answer will be "It depends on the circumstances". California currently consider the "Judge" .410 pistol to be a "Short Barreled Shotgun." While I find that patently absurd, that is their stance. Act accordingly.

3. You make a big leap of logic here that "Shotguns and rifles" are "Non Concealable firearms". I dont find the term "non-concealable firearm" used any where in the penal code, nor do I find where shotguns are specifically defined as such. You have to read the penal code for what it SAYS, and not add your own definitions to it. And what it SAYS is the law applies to Pistols, Revolvers OR OTHER FIREARMS CAPABLE OF BEING CONCEALED ON A PERSON.

So the question isnt "is my Mossburg 500 cruiser a shotgun?" or even "is my 460 Weatherby a rifle?" Its "are either 'Capable of being concealed on a person'"? I cant answer that for you. I have a Mossy 500C... Im pretty sure if I thought about it hard enough I could conceal it in a coat or such.

Pistols and revolvers are easy since they are specifically mentioned in the PC. Whether the police and D.A.s will make an arrest for other firearms will depend on the circumstances.

4. People v. Clark is still valid law.

[wfb18]

RomanDad, thank you so very much for your response to these questions. If I were to move to California, I would apply for a C.C.W. license from Fresno County. I have a Kentucky C.C.D.W. license now. If you have time, may I please ask a few more questions, sir?

Originally Posted by RomanDad

1. California specifically defines "shotgun" in California Penal Code 12020 (21)....

Thank you for supplying me with the official definition of "shotgun" in California Penal Code 12020 (21). I had searched "California Firearms Laws 2006" (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2006.pdf), hence my incorrect assumption because I found that "shotgun" is not defined therein. Therefore, an unloaded 18.5" Mossberg 500 Cruiser IS NOT A SHOTGUN according to CPC 12020 (21).

Originally Posted by RomanDad

2. There is no clear answer to this question, and the answer will be "It depends on the circumstances"... Act accordingly.

If a Taurus Judge has been ruled to be a SBS in California, then an unloaded 18.5" Mossberg 500 Cruiser IS A SHOTGUN.

Originally Posted by RomanDad

3. You make a big leap of logic here.... Whether the police and D.A.s will make an arrest for other firearms will depend on the circumstances.

I suppose that it was the California Office of the Attorney General (http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/travel.php) which made a big leap of logic that "Nonconcealable firearms (rifles and shotguns) are not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container." This language certainly is not in the C.P.C., so the ambiguity is obvious. An 18.5" Mossberg 500 Cruiser, lying unconcealed on the front seat by the driver, simultaneously both IS A SHOTGUN and IS NOT A SHOTGUN, depending on seemingly ambiguous interpretations of contradictions in the C.P.C.
I agree that LEO's and D.A.s will make an arrest for other firearms "capable of being concealed on a person" depending on the circumstances. I am proposing the very simplest circumstance: no criminal intent and transporting an unloaded, unconcealed 18.5" Mossberg 500 Cruiser on the front seat by the driver, and not in a locked container.
Moreover, a stock could be mounted on this firearm, without dispute making it a shotgun by definition. Again I could propose the very simplest circumstance: no criminal intent and transporting an unloaded, unconcealed 18.5" shoulder-fired Mossberg 500 shotgun on the front seat by the driver, and not in a locked container. Is the statement of the CA A.G. made in good faith that such shoulder-fired shotguns are "not generally covered within the provisions of California Penal Code section 12025 and therefore are not required to be transported in a locked container"? For example, do California hunters routinely transport unloaded, unconcealed shotguns that are not in a locked container?

Originally Posted by RomanDad

4. People v. Clark is still valid law.

Thank you very much. Then are C.P.C. 12031 (a), (g) and People v. Clark in conflict?
"C.P.C. 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.
"C.P.C. 12031. (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."

[Quiet]

AFAIK...

A from the factory pistol grip only shotgun that has never had a shoulder stock attached is an "other" (Title 1) firearm.

In regards to transporting, mMost likely your Mossberg 500 Crusier will be treated like a long gun by most LEOs, since it does not meet the definition of a "firearm capable of being concealed upon a person" [PC 12001(a)(1)]. So, unloaded and not in a locked container would be legal, as long as you are not within 1000' of a school zone.



People v Clark clarified 12031(g).
In regards to your Mossberg 500 Cruiser...
... if you have shotgun shells in a side saddle and/or bandoleer sling, then it is not loaded.
... if you have shotgun shells in the tube magazine or a shotgun shell chambered, then it is loaded.


FYI...
As long as you never attach a shoulder stock to your Mossberg 500 Crusier, you can form a trust and send in a Form 4 to the BATFE, in order to make it an AOW. Once you get approved & have your tax stamp (yes, people in CA are successfully getting approved for AOWs in CA, requires a lot of hoop jumping but it can be done), you can legally reduce the barrel to less than 18". CA's SBS definition does not apply to AOWs [PC 12020(b)(8)]. Also, it is currently possible to have an AOW on your CA CCW permit [PC 12050(a)] (it meets the "other firearm capable of being concealed" definition [PC 12001(a)(1)]. However, (if passed) AB225 will change it so that you could no longer have an AOW on your CCW permit.


Penal Code 12001
(a)(1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Quiet

AFAIK...

A from the factory pistol grip only shotgun that has never had a shoulder stock attached is an "other" (Title 1) firearm.

In regards to transporting, mMost likely your Mossberg 500 Crusier will be treated like a long gun by most LEOs, since it does not meet the definition of a "firearm capable of being concealed upon a person" [PC 12001(a)(1)]. So, unloaded and not in a locked container would be legal, as long as you are not within 1000' of a school zone.



People v Clark clarified 12031(g).
In regards to your Mossberg 500 Cruiser...
... if you have shotgun shells in a side saddle and/or bandoleer sling, then it is not loaded.
... if you have shotgun shells in the tube magazine or a shotgun shell chambered, then it is loaded.


FYI...
As long as you never attach a shoulder stock to your Mossberg 500 Crusier, you can form a trust and send in a Form 4 to the BATFE, in order to make it an AOW. Once you get approved & have your tax stamp (yes, people in CA are successfully getting approved for AOWs in CA, requires a lot of hoop jumping but it can be done), you can legally reduce the barrel to less than 18". CA's SBS definition does not apply to AOWs [PC 12020(b)(8)]. Also, it is currently possible to have an AOW on your CA CCW permit [PC 12050(a)] (it meets the "other firearm capable of being concealed" definition [PC 12001(a)(1)]. However, (if passed) AB225 will change it so that you could no longer have an AOW on your CCW permit.


Penal Code 12001
(a)(1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.

There is one issue with this.... And its the "Taurus Judge" thing.

Federally, yes- A Mossburg C is an AOW.

1. California law doesn't really have an AOW term on its own (it refers to the Federal Law, and for a specific reason- exemption from 12020 a which is not really what were talking about here (Sale, Importation and Manufacture)- General possession of 12020 b8 items will be treated in accordance with federal law, where the handling and transportation rules are even stricter than California's), but we KNOW how California law treats a Taurus Judge (or ANY weapon that fires shotgun ammunition-) They maintain its a shotgun, not an AOW. Thus theres a better than decent chance that a Mossburg 500 will be considered to be a shotgun too. But who knows for sure? When in doubt, err on the side of caution.

2. While it may be "TECHNICALLY" possible to have an AOW (or SBs/r) on a 12050 Permit, I dont know of ANY jurisdiction that has actually done so.

[wfb18]

Originally Posted by Quiet

AFAIK...

A from the factory pistol grip only shotgun that has never had a shoulder stock attached is an "other" (Title 1) firearm.

In regards to transporting, most likely your Mossberg 500 Crusier will be treated like a long gun by most LEOs, since it does not meet the definition of a "firearm capable of being concealed upon a person" [PC 12001(a)(1)]. So, unloaded and not in a locked container would be legal, as long as you are not within 1000' of a school zone.

People v Clark clarified 12031(g).
In regards to your Mossberg 500 Cruiser...
... if you have shotgun shells in a side saddle and/or bandoleer sling, then it is not loaded.
... if you have shotgun shells in the tube magazine or a shotgun shell chambered, then it is loaded.

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Thus theres a better than decent chance that a Mossburg 500 will be considered to be a shotgun too. But who knows for sure? When in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Thank you very much, Quiet and RomanDad. You have supplied me with good information. I think that I will send some questions to Attorney General Brown. Perhaps his office will reply. Or should I ask questions of the California Department of Justice instead?

I never want an AOW or SBS. I wanted to see if the questions could be answered because there would be an interim period after moving to California before a C.C.W. could be issued to me. It seemed to me that transporting a legal-length unloaded, unconcealed shotgun (with or without a stock) with a side-saddle of shells (which could be placed in a locked, armored, bolted-down container when I am not in the vehicle) might not violate the C.P.C.

Kentucky honors any California C.C.W. license, as well as all other states Permits/Licenses. Thirty-three states have reciprocity with Kentucky, but California does not.

Thank you very much for your kind consideration, friends.

[Quiet]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

There is one issue with this.... And its the "Taurus Judge" thing.

Federally, yes- A Mossburg C is an AOW.

1. California law doesn't really have an AOW term on its own (it refers to the Federal Law, and for a specific reason- exemption from 12020 a which is not really what were talking about here (Sale, Importation and Manufacture)- General possession of 12020 b8 items will be treated in accordance with federal law, where the handling and transportation rules are even stricter than California's), but we KNOW how California law treats a Taurus Judge (or ANY weapon that fires shotgun ammunition-) They maintain its a shotgun, not an AOW. Thus theres a better than decent chance that a Mossburg 500 will be considered to be a shotgun too. But who knows for sure? When in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Under CA law, a BATFE approved AOW is not a CA defined SBS.

12020(a)(1) prohibits SBS.
12020(c)(1) defines what a SBS is.

A non-BATFE approved (no have tax stamp) AOW (Mossberg 500 Cruiser with barrel less than 18") would also be classified as a SBS via 12020(c)(1).
A BATFE approved (have tax stamp) AOW (Mossberg 500 Crusier with barrel less than 18") would not be prohibited as a SBS via 12020(c)(1) due to it being exempt from being a SBS via 12020(b)(8).

The Taurus Judge is classified as a SBS via 12020(c)(1)(A)&(B) even though the BATFE classifies it as a handgun.
12001(f) says CA can classify handguns as SBS, if they meet the definition of 12020(c)(1).

Lots of B.S. in CA firearm laws, going to take awhile to clear some of it out.
But, now that we have Heller (2A = individual right) and Nordyke (incorporation of 2A), it's now possible to weed some of that B.S. out.
Starting with the CA DOJ "approved list".
Assault weapon ban and/or large capacity magazine ban may be next on the lawsuit list.

[wfb18]

Originally Posted by Quiet

People v Clark clarified 12031(g).
In regards to your Mossberg 500 Cruiser...
... if you have shotgun shells in a side saddle and/or bandoleer sling, then it is not loaded.
... if you have shotgun shells in the tube magazine or a shotgun shell chambered, then it is loaded.

Once again, thank you, Quiet and RomanDad. After I read your posts, I searched and I found these summaries of the California definition of "loaded" firearm, based on the case law of People v. Clark superceding C.P.C. 12031(g):
- http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=103660
- http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/24635.html

"The penal code definition of loaded has been slightly modified by People v. Clark. Case law does not change the text of the penal code. The text of the penal code can only be changed by the legislature. But case law is law, regardless. That's how our system works."

"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.
"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."

[Justaguy]

Pragmatic solution:
Carry it in the trunk.

It's expensive to be a "test case".

[wfb18]

Originally Posted by Justaguy

Pragmatic solution: Carry it in the trunk. It's expensive to be a "test case".

Thank you very much, Justaguy, for your suggestion.

People v. Clark was the test case, and all the sessions of the California legislature since 1996 have been content to leave the now superceded language of C.P.C. 12031(g) uncorrected. It would be simplicity itself to revise C.P.C 12031(g) to reflect People v. Clark. An out-of-stater like myself concludes that some belligerent California legislators are intimidating Californians who still think that they cannot transport their weapon and their ammunition together.
An out-of-stater like myself is frustrated to realize that my odds of obtaining a C.C.W. license in California are greater if I re-locate in some particular county, and then to realize that a C.C.W. license might not be honored one county away.
An out-of-stater like myself is frustrated that I have passed FBI, NCIC, and sheriff background checks and ten or more other legal qualifications to hold a C.C.D.W. license that California will not honor, even though my state honors California C.C.W. licenses.
An out-of-stater like myself is frustrated that 40,000 illegal alien gangmembers operate in Los Angeles, that perhaps 300,000 total gangmembers operate in Los Angeles, that perhaps 2 million gangmembers operate in California or are locked up, many eventually to be released and return to violent activity. Yet I would be expected to wait months to establish residency and wait more months uncertain if a C.C.W. license will be granted. In my state, the sheriff "shall issue" a C.C.D.W. license without exception to every qualified applicant.
An out-of-stater like myself has no confidence that keeping a weapon locked in the trunk is appropriate for self-defense. I am now confidant that transporting a legal-length unloaded, unconcealed shotgun (with or without a stock) with a side-saddle of shells (which could be placed in a locked, armored, bolted-down container when I am not in the vehicle) does not violate the C.P.C.

[1buba]

If you are so concerned, and taking exception to those on this board with REAL LIFE legal experience, may i suggest that this thread is no long of use.

I suggest you contact the governmental authority of your choice.

Mod's can we shut this down as it can serve no further use?

Thanks.

[RomanDad]

Honestly, I wouldnt worry about 12031.....

If you carry the shotgun in the cab with a bunch of shells attached to it, ANYWHERE in urban california, some busybody westside mommy type will see it.... And they will report it... And when they report it, they tend to EMBELLISH....

THAT would be my concern....


Your analysis of people v clark means nothing if the soccer mom calls the cops and says"theres a horible man and he has a shotgun in his car and he pointed it at me...."


Yes.... People lie. The more ideologically driven they are, the more likely they are to lie. Its harder to lie when they cant see the gun. Carry it in the trunk or in a locked container.

I have spent a LOT of time in Kentucky (I love it btw)...

THIS AINT KENTUCKY. Many of the people here lack common sense....

[libertarian]

Yes, it's technically legal, but the cop is going to pull you out of the car at gunpoint and book you, then let the DA decide it was legal.

Not for me, thanks. Yes, it sucks, but welcome to CA.

[Poogsdad]

wfb18 you came to this forum with specific questions that were legitimate and germane, particularly for an "Out-of-Stater" like yourself.

You have recieved some excellent answers to your questions, not just from California residents who live here and deal with issues like this daily, but lawyers and legislators who are very well versed in these areas.

The answers you have recieved may not be what you wanted to hear, but they were most certainly what you needed to hear.

No one knows better than us how strange and unfriendly California Gun Laws are. We are also well aware of the many pitfalls regarding interpretation of these gun laws. Even if you are completely correct in your interpretation of a law, local LEOs, prosecuters, and even the ocassional judge may have an entirely different interpretation.

As a CCW oriented forum our mission is to increase CCW issuance throughout California, within the constraints of existing laws. We may not like the CA gun laws but we are required to follow them. This holds true of all laws, whether we agree with them or not.

Thanks,

Poogsdad

[wfb18]

Originally Posted by libertarian

Yes, it's technically legal, but the cop is going to pull you out of the car at gunpoint and book you, then let the DA decide it was legal.

Originally Posted by Poogsdad

Even if you are completely correct in your interpretation of a law, local LEOs, prosecuters, and even the occasional judge may have an entirely different interpretation.

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Your analysis of People v Clark means nothing if the soccer mom calls the cops....

Thank you so much for your help, from four Senior Founding Members, no less. My friend tonight at work, who has spent much time in California, listened to my thoughts about this and essentially he told me the same thing as you are saying. I concede to your (and my friend's) very practical wisdom.
May I ask one more question please, before you delete this thread? Can one transport an unloaded pistol and a full magazine of ammunition in a locked, armored, bolted-down container within the vehicle's interior, while he waits for a California C.C.W. license to be issued?
Thank you all kindly for your help!