We pay the police to exercise discretion. This means, in many cases, we expect young men, usually in their early 20s, with perhaps a year of training, to get it right 100% of the time. We expect them, often with only a high school education, to deal with complex situations puzzling to people with doctorates in psychology or sociology, and to successfully resolve them. Above all, we expect them to apply the law and interpret the Constitution in ways that confound scholars, lawyers and judges, and we expect them to do it in seconds, under stress, and sometimes under fire.
What is most amazing is that they so often get it right. However, sometimes, they get it wrong, as in this case. The question: When is a gun loaded? A great many people seemed unable to answer that question. The Volokh Conspiracy (if you don’t know this blog, you should) explains:
The case is State v. Dor (N.H. May 7, 2013):
On May 8, 2012, police searched the defendant’s vehicle and found a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol adjacent to a loaded magazine in the vehicle’s glove compartment. The pistol did not have a cartridge in the chamber or a magazine in the magazine well.
The State charged the defendant with a class A misdemeanor for ‘knowingly carry[ing] a loaded pistol as defined in RSA 159:4 in a vehicle without a valid license….’ … RSA 159:4 provides, in pertinent part:
No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license…. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges.
The defendant argues that ‘with’ in the second sentence should be interpreted narrowly as “joined to,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2626 (unabridged ed. 2002), so that a ‘loaded pistol or revolver’ encompasses only a firearm that contains one or more cartridges. The State counters that ‘with’ should be interpreted broadly as ‘denoting nearness, agreement, or connection,’ Webster’s New Dictionary and Thesaurus 625 (1990), so that a ‘loaded pistol or revolver’ encompasses a firearm that contains no cartridges but is located near a loaded magazine or clip.
Put aside, for now, the fact that “clip” is incorrect terminology, often wrongly substituted for the correct term: magazine. The only currently manufactured, widely available firearm that actually uses a clip is the M1 Garand battle rifle. Let’s review. A man was arrested for possessing a loaded firearm despite the fact that the chamber of his semiautomatic pistol was empty–no cartridge was in it–and its magazine was not inserted in the gun. There was no way, absent fully seating a loaded magazine and chambering a round (or manually inserting a single cartridge into the chamber), that the gun could possibly be fired. This would seem, to rational people, to be a textbook example of an unloaded gun. Fortunately, the court agreed:
Furthermore, we reject the State’s reading of RSA 159:4 because it could render the statute unconstitutionally vague. A criminal statute is void for vagueness when it forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Under the State’s reading, a person of ordinary intelligence would have to guess at how “near” a pistol or revolver must be to a loaded magazine or clip to constitute a violation of RSA 159:4. In contrast, interpreting a “loaded pistol or revolver” as a pistol or revolver containing a cartridge in any position from which it can be fired eliminates the uncertainty: a pistol or revolver either contains a cartridge in such a position or it does not….
[I]n this country, ownership and use of standard pistols and revolvers is not only widespread and generally accepted as lawful, but also implicates constitutional rights, see U.S. CONST. amends. II, XIV; N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 2–a. [Footnote: See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635–36 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010); see also Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir.2012) (“What we know from [Heller and McDonald] is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home. What we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government…” Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61, 73 (1st Cir. 2012) (concluding that “the government may regulate the carrying of concealed weapons outside of the home”); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012) (stating that “[t]he Supreme Court has decided that the [Second Amendment] confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside”).]
For these reasons, we interpret RSA 159:4 narrowly so as to set forth a clear demarcation between that conduct which is allowed and that which is prohibited. Cf. [Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 614 (1994)] (“If we were to accept as a general rule the Government’s suggestion that dangerous and regulated items place their owners under an obligation to inquire at their peril into compliance with regulations, we would undoubtedly reach some untoward results.”); Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982) (“[P]erhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.”).
So, the court agreed that an unloaded gun is an unloaded gun. The mere proximity of ammunition, whether loose or loaded into a magazine, does not magically cause an unloaded gun to be loaded unless a human being actually puts ammunition into that gun in such a way that it can be fired. This doesn’t seem a difficult concept.
Here’s the problem: this case should never have been brought. The criminal justice system failed on multiple levels. The system of checks and balances did not work.
The arresting officer should never have made the arrest. Clearly, the gun was not loaded, by any practical interpretation of law or common sense. That a police officer would think this a violation of the law suggests faulty training, faulty thinking, a lack of understanding of how to apply the law, or a combination of these.
The officer’s first line supervisor should have caught this problem and corrected it when he read and approved the officer’s report. Supervisors are supposed to be experienced, calm and thoughtful. They are supposed to recognize when their young subordinates are being overly aggressive.
The prosecutor should have immediately recognized this as a false arrest. Perhaps the officer involved was well intentioned and made an honest mistake. But in any case, the prosecutor should have dismissed the case and discussed the correct meaning of the law with the police to ensure no such cases were filed in the future.
The judge that initially heard the case should have dismissed it with prejudice. This is not a difficult interpretation. Clearly, if there is no magazine in a semiautomatic pistol, and no round in the chamber, it cannot, under the law, be loaded. Indeed, the law is a bit vague, but a judge should be able to understand not only the language of a law, but the intent of the legislators that wrote it.
The lesson of this little morality tale is that gun owners cannot expect even the law to keep them safe from false arrest and prosecution. I don’t know if the officer involved simply made a mistake in good faith, or whether he had anti-gun sentiments, but the result was the same for the unfortunate gun owner.
Fortunately, most police officers, and I speak of the officers that actually do the work of policing, not administrative types, are not anti-gun. In March of 2014, PoliceOne.com conducted a survey of law enforcement officers. The results:
Only 2.7% thought a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition would reduce violent crime. Seventy-one percent though it would have no effect on reducing violent crime and more than 20% thought it would have a negative effect.
A federal ban on the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic rifles–so-called “assault weapons” was also not considered a valid way to reduce violent crime. Seventy-one percent thought it would have no effect, 20.5% thought it would have a negative effect, and 6% thought it might have a “moderate” effect.
About 90% of officers felt that the presence of armed citizens at the beginning of an active shooter incident would reduce casualties.
More than 80% support arming school teachers and administrators that volunteer to carrying guns at work.
There are a number of other interesting questions and results in the survey, but the trend is clear: the overwhelming majority of police officers support the Constitution and have no difficulty with law-abiding citizens carrying firearms. But again, some obviously do not agree, and one never knows which of these officers will be interacting with them and which will think an obviously unloaded gun to be loaded.
Anyone carrying a firearm must always do their best to avoid calling attention to themselves, and must always do their best to avoid any kind of trouble.
Peter Bossley (@pbossley) said:
It is important to note that in at least my home state of Ohio a firearm carried in this way would be illegal without a Concealed Handgun License:
R.C. 2923.16 (C) No person shall knowingly transport or have a firearm in a motor vehicle, unless the person may lawfully possess that firearm under applicable law of this state or the United States, the firearm is unloaded, and the firearm is carried in one of the following ways:
…
And the definition of unloaded:
R.C. 2923.16 (K) (5) (a) “Unloaded” means
, with respect to a firearm other than a firearm described in division (K)(6) of this section, that no ammunition is in the firearm in question, no magazine or speed loader containing ammunition is inserted into the firearm in question , and one of the following applies:
(i) There is no ammunition in a magazine or speed loader that is in the vehicle in question and that may be used with the firearm in question.
(ii) Any magazine or speed loader that contains ammunition and that may be used with the firearm in question is stored in a compartment within the vehicle in question that cannot be accessed without leaving the vehicle or is stored in a container that provides complete and separate enclosure.
(b) For the purposes of division (K)(5)(a)(ii) of this section, a “container that provides complete and separate enclosure” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(i) A package, box, or case with multiple compartments, as long as the loaded magazine or speed loader and the firearm in question either are in separate compartments within the package, box, or case, or, if they are in the same compartment, the magazine or speed loader is contained within a separate enclosure in that compartment that does not contain the firearm and that closes using a snap, button, buckle, zipper, hook and loop closing mechanism, or other fastener that must be opened to access the contents or the firearm is contained within a separate enclosure of that nature in that compartment that does not contain the magazine or speed loader;
(ii) A pocket or other enclosure on the person of the person in question that closes using a snap, button, buckle, zipper, hook and loop closing mechanism, or other fastener that must be opened to access the contents.
(c) For the purposes of divisions (K)(5)(a) and (b) of this section, ammunition held in stripper-clips or in en-bloc clips is not considered ammunition that is loaded into a magazine or speed loader.
…
Yes, it is that crazy. without a license a handgun and loaded magazine in your glovebox or center console would be illegal.
Chip Bennett said:
Yep, I was just about to post this nuance of Ohio statute.
The gun-safety answer to the question When is a gun loaded? is always. But from a legal perspective, the answer to the question When is a gun unloaded? is it depends on how the State defines “unloaded”.
(Side note: the overall process for getting my CCW here in Ohio was much easier than the process in Missouri, but I much prefer the gun laws – and reciprocity – in Missouri.)
Peter Bossley (@pbossley) said:
Not to go too far off topic but the reason why we don’t have great reciprocity in Ohio is because we don’t do a NICS compliant check, just BCI for residents longer than 5 years and BCI/FBI for residents of Ohio for less than 5 years. So some states like GA won’t accept ours. In addition, since we won’t honor them, some states won’t honor us e.g PA. Hopefully the leftover bits from HB 495 from last session will mak it back in the loop for this session and we can get some of that fixed.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Mike,
You can depend on me to have a different take on something :)
My take is …
WTF is the intention of ….
I feels like the intention was that people should not carry a gun unless they have a license. “Gun” meaning something they could pull out and shoot somebody with.
Then somebody says …”what if they just bought it and are taking it home – where they don’t need a licence? How the hell can they get it home?”
So somebody says “Well, it should be OK if they don’t have ammunition.”
And somebody says “Lookit. If they just bought a gun, they are going to need ammunition. Do they need to make two trips to the store? … which could be a long way away in our neck of the woods.”
So somebody says “Well, it should be ok if the ammo is still boxed.”
Then somebody says..”Yeah. So it should be OK if the gun isn’t loaded.”
So a lawyer dreamt up some words to cover that situation.
They failed
They failed because the intention was (presumably) that somebody unlicensed can not pull out a gun and start shooting. What they wrote only introduces maybe a second’s delay before the unlicenced person can start shooting.
They should have asked me to draft the law.
I could have written something a lot clearer as to the intention in ….ooooh… not more than 20 pages.
(Joke..ok? :)
SlingTrebuchet said:
Ah! I see that Peter Bossley had commented while I was still multitasking.
That’s the sort of thing that I mean…. except that I would have made it a lot longer!!!
DNS Guns said:
The way I see it is obviously you have a right to have the gun in your car, loaded, unloaded, or however you wish to have it. It is clearly a constitutional right. I’m at a loss as to what part of shall not be infringed is so hard to understand. Licensing is permission. if permission is needed then you no longer have a right, you are granted a privilege. if the state is requiring you pay a bribe to obtain permission. that is clearly an unconstitutional act. Unconstitutional acts are void under the law. Its as if the law never existed.
Yes I know. Legally its not how it is in the real world but it should be. The purpose of concealed carry is nobody knows or should know you are armed. The only people who should ever find out are criminals when you defend yourself. Never consent to search and no officer should ever find your weapon.
SlingTrebuchet said:
Yes DNS
The real issue here is not the cop working to the spirit of the law.
The issue is that there is a law at all.
If there is to be a law, then it can be difficult to word it so that somebody can not work around it if they are determined to do so.
What if the law demanded that the ammunition must be in the packaging/container that it was purchased in?
Then a store would sell the ammunition in a magazine. The magazine would be the packaging. There’s maybe nothing in the law about not inserting packaging into the gun.
DNS Guns said:
That there is a law at all is my point. There shouldn’t be. Period. In a free society where we have unalienable rights (born with, can’t be taken away by legislation) the mere fact that states pass these laws is unconstitutional. If you have to get a permit then the state has taken your right and has turned it into a privilege. There is no other way of looking at it. The law is at fault as it should not exist in any form. No arrest should have been even possible because of the gun.
John said:
So sombody says… read the statute!
“No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license…. A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges.
If ‘ya just bought it (and ammo too) and you’re taking it home in a car, don’t load the
magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip. Dahhhhhhh…
John said:
There ‘ya go again Sling… presumimg. The intent has nothing to do with shooting a gun. Even a fool realizes that if you have possession of a gun and you also have some bullets…. you can load the gun and shot it. Dahhhhhh. The intent is simple. If you do not have a license to do so you cannot carry (or have in your immediate possession) in a motor vehicle, a ‘loaded’ gun. Simple really…. isn’t it?
SlingTrebuchet said:
John,
I have to admit that the idea of laws restricting guns having anything to do with the possibility of the guns being used to fire ammunition is just an assumption/presumption on my part.
You clearly have a story to do with such laws being intended to achieve something not related to the possibility of guns being fired.
I look forward to your sharing of this. It sounds interesting.
So..
Why don’t you write something about this, and I’ll get some popcorn.
Should we get a room?
John said:
Sling,
No story to tell… no popcorn or room needed. You seem to get great enjoyment out of making mountains out of molehills. As I said earlier… read the statute. The Court has now weighed in and resolved the issue of ‘loaded’ in this case however, prior to that decision the statute was ambiguous. Maybe the officer was following some locally accepted rule… after all, his supervisor didn’t override the bust, the DA filed the criminal complaint and the Court didn’t object. But back to basics. You threw in several ‘what if’s’ … somebody said this… somebody says that… yadda yadda yadda. It’s simple really. If you want to transport a firearm and you do not have a CCW permit, don’t load anything. And for sure, unless you’re looking for a ‘contempt of cop’ issue, don’t put it in the glove box of your vehicle. It’s just common sense…why ask for trouble.
SlingTrebuchet said:
John,
The issue in the thread is ( apart from the question of whether there should be such a law in the first place ) is the interpretation of the law used by the cop in question.
If he went by your rule, then he would have been correct, as it seems that the mag had rounds in it. All it takes is for the gun and mag to be picked up, the mag inserted, rack to taste and make my day.
The court ruling objected to a “vagueness”.
Peter Bossley posted an extract above where the intention was to eliminate vagueness as far as possible while still permitting someone without a licence to have both a gun and ammunition in the same vehicle at the same time.
It is all to do with the ease with which gun and ammunition could be brought together so that the gun could fire the ammunition.
John said:
Sling,
Now that was a well stated, lucid reply. Congrats.
styro1 said:
A police officer should be able to distinguish between a loaded weapon and an unloaded one seeing how they carry one for a minimum of 32 hours a week. I highly doubt the PO who made this arrest carries his weapon while on duty with his magazines in a pouch on his belt along with pistol in it’s holster without a magazine inserted and a bullet in the chamber and considers it loaded. Unless of course he is Barney Fife and carries a bullet in his shirt pocket and loads his pistol when he needs it, fumbling around while under duress. Unfortunately progressivism has been creeping north the last few decades as former Massachusetts residents moved to NH to get away from high taxes and statism but didn’t change they way they voted. That is happening more and more where residents of blue states move to red states for lower taxes, less crime and less onerous laws, but bring along their progressive ideas to the voting booth as has happened in the “Live Free or Die” State, New Hampshire.
Advo said:
The gun owner is just lucky he didn’t encounter some of Las Vegas’ “finest”.
He would have needed more than a good lawyer.
RuleofOrder said:
Did the officer enforce the law as written?
Is it an officer’s job to interpret the law (for meaning), or the court’s?
Law officer enforced law as written, bad law, law gets changed. All is well with the world.
Mark E said:
Two comments come to mind —
first, the police at a minimum standard should know the law as written and case law. After all, us “civilians” (per polizei-speak) are expected to know and obey every nuance at all times.
Second, I suspect that the actual offense was “contempt of cop” in that Mr. Dor was not properly “respectful”, the most serious crime in existence.
John said:
I note that the weapon was found ‘during a search’ of Dor’s car. I don’t know the facts leading up to the search.. Could that be a factor in the seizure?
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear John:
Good question! The reason for the search–and whether it was constitutional–would have a bearing on whether any evidence found during that search was admissible. Since the gun and magazine were apparently admissible, I would assume that the search was valid, for whatever reason it was done.
DNS Guns said:
I would be willing to bet the search was granted by the motorist. For whatever reason it seems a standard question now days is ” I’m sure you have nothing to hide but do you mind if I take a look in your car?”
I am 53 and consider myself a pretty clean cut normal looking guy but I have been stopped a few times in the last couple of years and they always ask me that question. Didn’t matter who it was, local police, state police, sheriff’s office. State police and sheriff I was coming home from long backpacking trips and I admit I looked iffy. Dirty, backpack in car etc. But not in town. On each occasion I politely declined the search and only the city police pressed the issue with the usual ” if you have nothing to hide why would you decline” statement.
Never consent to a search no matter what.
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear DNS Guns:
Good advice. Keep in mind, however, that if the police actually arrest someone, they may search the vehicle “incident to arrest,” not only to search for weapons, but to inventory the vehicle to protect themselves from false charges of theft. And while a traffic ticket is technically an arrest, search incident to arrest only applies when one is taken into physical custody.
DNS Guns said:
Mike,
Definitely they will search after an arrest and in reading this case I didn’t see why they searched. Its not clear to me if the arrest was before or after the search. If arrested before the search then tough luck on his part. If after then I would bet he granted them permission thinking what many people do, I have nothing to hide, knock yourself out. A lot of people feel they need to prove to the police that they are clean and doing no wrong. Some officers probably love those types. My cars are driven by my teenage kids sometimes. There is no telling what a bunch of kids will get into and who knows what may be under a seat or in a backseat ashtray. Just a fact of life. I would rather not have to explain that to a judge.
Which makes me remember a funny story from my college days long ago. My roommate had a real screw up younger brother. Roommate had gone home for the weekend and let his brother use the car on a sat. night. He got up early on Sunday and drove back to school and was almost back to campus when he was rear ended by a state trooper. So cop calls in the supervisor and they are working the accident when they ask him to pop the trunk to see if they could push the tail light out so he could drive on. His brother had been out harvesting his pot plants the night before and there they were. Like 20 of them. So guess who went to jail. Back then in KY it wasn’t all that big a deal. His brother actually had to testify in that they were his plants and roommate had charges dropped. Now days it would have been a major seizure worth 100’s of thousands. Not so in 78.
Pingback: SMM, The Best Of 2015-ish: The Top 23! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Col. B. Bunny said:
The case could also have been decided by applying the rule that penal laws are to be strictly construed. If the legislature meant to criminalize possession of an empty handgun with a nearby magazine containing bullets it should have done so at the time the bill was passed.
Darrell McGee said:
I found more relevant info on this page then I have from trying to look up Oregon firearm laws–I mainly was trying to get a straight answer about whether a locked unloaded handgun in a backpack with no ammo nearby is considered an illegal concealed weapon. My purpose being to keep it out of the hands of burglars if my home is broken into while I am away. I have taken a CCL class but have not decided to get one yet.
Randy said:
This is a very well written article
Mike McDaniel said:
Dear Randy:
Thanks, and welcome to SMM!
Pingback: How to Clean a Gun: Shotgun Edition - Consumer Files
Pingback: The SMM Top 15 Of 2017 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: SMM All Time Top Ten Articles | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The SMM Top 10: 2011-2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: 2020: Top Ten Articles | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2021: Part 7 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2022, Part 7 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty 2023: Part 7 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty 2024, Part 7 | Stately McDaniel Manor