Utah Guns Forum banner
21 - 32 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
quychang said:
My problem with this explanation is that it only meets 1 of the 2 requirements. There is not a round under the hammer, but on the other hand, there is one in the first cylinder to rotate into firing position. So I'm not sure you could sell this configuration as meeting the Utah unloaded rules. If someone can correct me, I'd be happy to be wrong.
Again, we have to go back to the code.

The first test is: Is there a round in firing position? In this case no. The cylinder doesn't have any chamber in firing position.

The second test is: Is there "an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile to be fired."

What is the one mechanism that will cause the next up shell to be fired in this case? If the revolver is an SA, I contend there is none. Pulling the trigger does nothing. Cocking the hammer rotates the next chamber (with its live round) into firing position but does not fire that round. To fire the round requires the operation of a second mechanism: namely the trigger.

While this can all be a bit complicated, it is complicated in favor of the law-abiding gun owner who is able to keep a gun as close to fully ready to use as possible while still having the gun be considered "unloaded" for most legal purposes. The easy definition would "a gun is loaded when any live rounds are in the gun". That would not be nearly as convenient for Utah's gun owners.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
bagpiper said:
Again, we have to go back to the code.

The first test is: Is there a round in firing position? In this case no. The cylinder doesn't have any chamber in firing position.

The second test is: Is there "an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile to be fired."

What is the one mechanism that will cause the next up shell to be fired in this case? If the revolver is an SA, I contend there is none. Pulling the trigger does nothing. Cocking the hammer rotates the next chamber (with its live round) into firing position but does not fire that round. To fire the round requires the operation of a second mechanism: namely the trigger.

While this can all be a bit complicated, it is complicated in favor of the law-abiding gun owner who is able to keep a gun as close to fully ready to use as possible while still having the gun be considered "unloaded" for most legal purposes. The easy definition would "a gun is loaded when any live rounds are in the gun". That would not be nearly as convenient for Utah's gun owners.

Charles
And again, I have to go to the argument that you might have a hard time selling this to the average OEO on the street as meeting the criteria. I'm sure technically you are absolutely correct. He's still going to expect an empty cylinder as being the first one under the hammer. I'm probably wrong, but I wish a lawyer, or a LEO would weigh in on this conversation

Mel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
quychang said:
bagpiper said:
Again, we have to go back to the code.

The first test is: Is there a round in firing position? In this case no. The cylinder doesn't have any chamber in firing position.

The second test is: Is there "an unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile is in a position whereby the manual operation of any mechanism once would cause the unexpended cartridge, shell, or projectile to be fired."

What is the one mechanism that will cause the next up shell to be fired in this case? If the revolver is an SA, I contend there is none. Pulling the trigger does nothing. Cocking the hammer rotates the next chamber (with its live round) into firing position but does not fire that round. To fire the round requires the operation of a second mechanism: namely the trigger.

While this can all be a bit complicated, it is complicated in favor of the law-abiding gun owner who is able to keep a gun as close to fully ready to use as possible while still having the gun be considered "unloaded" for most legal purposes. The easy definition would "a gun is loaded when any live rounds are in the gun". That would not be nearly as convenient for Utah's gun owners.

Charles
And again, I have to go to the argument that you might have a hard time selling this to the average OEO on the street as meeting the criteria. I'm sure technically you are absolutely correct. He's still going to expect an empty cylinder as being the first one under the hammer. I'm probably wrong, but I wish a lawyer, or a LEO would weigh in on this conversation

Mel
Why do you think you need to 'sell' this to an [OEO] (Don't let your bias show too much there). The law is the law. Either you can fire with one action or you can't. Either you have a round in the firing position or you don't. All of this talk of 'two actions' and 'next cylinder up', etc... is just paraphrasing done by well intentioned people trying to explain the law... but not the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
althor said:
Why do you think you need to 'sell' this to an [OEO] (Don't let your bias show too much there). The law is the law. Either you can fire with one action or you can't. Either you have a round in the firing position or you don't. All of this talk of 'two actions' and 'next cylinder up', etc... is just paraphrasing done by well intentioned people trying to explain the law... but not the law.
I guess because I've had conversations with LEO's that were convinced it wasn't okay for a concealed permit holder to carry with one in the pipe, or a fully loaded revolver. Why do you think they're smart enough to even recognize the hammer between cylinders as being a safety position, much less that it's okay to have a full cylinder?

Mel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
quychang said:
althor said:
Why do you think you need to 'sell' this to an [OEO] (Don't let your bias show too much there). The law is the law. Either you can fire with one action or you can't. Either you have a round in the firing position or you don't. All of this talk of 'two actions' and 'next cylinder up', etc... is just paraphrasing done by well intentioned people trying to explain the law... but not the law.
I guess because I've had conversations with LEO's that were convinced it wasn't okay for a concealed permit holder to carry with one in the pipe, or a fully loaded revolver. Why do you think they're smart enough to even recognize the hammer between cylinders as being a safety position, much less that it's okay to have a full cylinder?

Mel
I guess I don't see how the definition of loaded comes into play with your example above as a concealed permit holder doesn't have to worry about whether the weapon is loaded or not in the first place.

And for the person carrying without a permit, what do you think a court will do when the facts come out, if it even goes that far? I assume that the officer will get schooled and you can say neener neener.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
quychang said:
And again, I have to go to the argument that you might have a hard time selling this to the average OEO on the street as meeting the criteria. I'm sure technically you are absolutely correct. He's still going to expect an empty cylinder as being the first one under the hammer. I'm probably wrong, but I wish a lawyer, or a LEO would weigh in on this conversation
The last time I had a the privilege of having a similar conversation with a Peace Officer it was quite cordial. And when I offered to discuss the matter and go over the actual code with his Duty Sergeant and/or Lieutenant we did just that. We were discussing whether my (concealed) carry permit allowed me to open carry my 1911 fully loaded.

Admittedly, I get whatever "privilege" is given to middle-aged, fat, balding, white guys who dress reasonably conservatively (for having a 1911 OCd on his hip). But I'd like to think my comportment also contributed a lot. I suspect my ability to bring up the code on their laptop knowing that we wanted to look at 53-5-7xx (carry permit section) and 76-10-5xx (general firearms laws) probably also gave me a little credibility as I brought up the various relevant sections and explained the interactions between them.

Now, this was a unique situation in that it was at a major city event (Independence Day midway) with the Sergeant and Lieutenant close at hand.

Under other situations, I'd not argue much with an officer on the street. If he wanted to issue a citation, I'd sign it. If he insisted I remove a round or two, I'd do so. If he wanted to impound my gun or arrest me, I'd not offer physical resistance.

I would then go as soon as practicable to visit with the Duty Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Chief, and/or Chief. I expect they'd pull out the actual code book at my request and we'd go over the code. And I fully expect they'd come to agreement with me on what that code means. It just isn't that hard to understand once you read it carefully, and especially once someone explains it. Especially once someone explains it, someone else reading the code has only a couple of choices: Accept that explanation as accurate, or else put forth their own explanation. But their alternate explanation needs to comport with the code they are reading; not with their faulty understanding or analogies of the code, but of the code itself.

I think most of the police leadership in Utah departments is well enough versed in reading statutes, and have enough personal integrity that when confronted with that choice--in a non-dangerous environment like their office--they are much more likely to say, "Crap. I may have been mistaken about this and might need to do some training for my officers."

No doubt, one could act like a jerk and make it very difficult for the police leadership to get to that point. But barring that, my sample size of 2 with Utah officers says they tend to be fairly reasonable and understanding of the law once they get a chance to read it.

If the cops are unreasonable that stage, I'd expect a visit with the city or county attorney would be successful. Those guys care about win/loss record and bringing charges for conduct that isn't illegal is a good way to lose a case. Worst comes to worst, I'd have to hire an attorney.

In the case at hand, I've got a permit and so the whole definition of "loaded" doesn't really apply as I've got that statutory exemption to the bans on carrying a "loaded" firearm. But there are lots of things regarding guns where someone might misinterpret. Does someone have the notion that I can't OC my firearm in a school zone even though I have a permit? Does someone get upset that I'm shooting on public lands where discharge is perfectly legal? Do they think that my permit doesn't allow me to carry a fully loaded long gun in my car? (We'll never find out because I don't carry long guns fully loaded in my car even though I am legal to do so.)

Ultimately, we either know the law and behave legally, prepared to defend against erroneous charges, or else we let our conduct be restricted not by law, but what we think someone else might believe the law to be or even want it to be. If someone wants to err on the side of caution, I won't fault them. I just don't think the risk is all that high on this issue.

Charles

(My second sample was a routine traffic stop for speeding along Highway 6. I gave the local revenue officer* my license and permit to carry. He took possession of my gun as he wrote the ticket and as he handed it back said I couldn't legally have a round in the chamber in the car. Since I had my wallet out I pulled out my reference sheet and explained that not only did my permit allow me to carry fully loaded, but that just the prior legislative session the law had been changed to allow carrying a fully loaded firearm in one's automobile without even needing a permit. He asked if I was a lawyer and I responded, "No. I just figure a guy who carries a gun better know the laws well enough to stay legal." He didn't say another word about my gun, handed it to me, gave me my ticket, and was off to find another donation.)

*Yes, I was exceeding the posted limit on a rural highway under ideal conditions with low traffic volume. No, it wasn't excessive, but the enforcement was. And without even an option to attend traffic class or otherwise minimize the reported points on my insurance, it was obvious that this was far more about revenue than safety or even education. Still, lesson learned. I paid the ticket and celebrated when the speed limit was raised. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Charles, you're absolutely right. I don't know the exact codes, or carry a flashcard. I probably should. But on the other hand, my hackles get raised by ignorance, particularly in someone who's job it is to KNOW the law, not make it up as they go. I will comply with their "guidance", take their badge and department phone number if he'll offer it, and also the name of his Sargent again if he'll provide it. I would then go home, carefully craft an email or better yet physical mail and send it off. Or hand deliver it, if local. I will do everything possible in my power to get the officer in as much hot water as can be generated by a single citizen. Preferably boiling so he walks out feeling like the *** that he is, and lobster red. All done very respectfully. Up to and including mentioning the name of my personal attorney. Or asking if I need to retain one.

Different approaches, hopefully similar outcomes, but I will be embarrassed by him, and spite forces me to admit to wanting to return the favor Not in person, because even if he agrees at the end of our conversation, he'll still feel like he was right.

Mel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,107 Posts
quychang said:
Charles, you're absolutely right. I don't know the exact codes, or carry a flashcard. I probably should. But on the other hand, my hackles get raised by ignorance, particularly in someone who's job it is to KNOW the law, not make it up as they go.
I try to remember that even among college trained lawyers, there is a lot of specialization. Consider that most lawyers will specialize in areas like criminal defense, water rights, corporate law, property law, etc.

One of the problems with the change in vernacular from "Peace Officer" to "Law Enforcement Officer" is the subtle requirement to know all the laws. Think of Andy Griffin. How often did he cite code? He was keeping the peace. And there probably weren't too many laws on the books in Mayberry that didn't relate directly to keeping the peace. Complex matters like estate law or property law were matters for lawyer and judges, so long as those involved weren't getting into fist fights or worse.

Certainly, police officers need to have some minimum working knowledge of areas of law they routinely need to uphold: traffic laws, various breeches of the peace, and the basics of our gun laws. A polite officer who is honestly mistaken, gets my courtesy so long as he is willing to accept correction either from me or his superiors when I provide it. If I ever have a run in with a jerk who has a badge, your course of action would seem appropriate.

Charles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
bagpiper said:
quychang said:
Charles, you're absolutely right. I don't know the exact codes, or carry a flashcard. I probably should. But on the other hand, my hackles get raised by ignorance, particularly in someone who's job it is to KNOW the law, not make it up as they go.
I try to remember that even among college trained lawyers, there is a lot of specialization. Consider that most lawyers will specialize in areas like criminal defense, water rights, corporate law, property law, etc.

One of the problems with the change in vernacular from "Peace Officer" to "Law Enforcement Officer" is the subtle requirement to know all the laws. Think of Andy Griffin. How often did he cite code? He was keeping the peace. And there probably weren't too many laws on the books in Mayberry that didn't relate directly to keeping the peace. Complex matters like estate law or property law were matters for lawyer and judges, so long as those involved weren't getting into fist fights or worse.

Certainly, police officers need to have some minimum working knowledge of areas of law they routinely need to uphold: traffic laws, various breeches of the peace, and the basics of our gun laws. A polite officer who is honestly mistaken, gets my courtesy so long as he is willing to accept correction either from me or his superiors when I provide it. If I ever have a run in with a jerk who has a badge, your course of action would seem appropriate.

Charles
I guess one of my issues is two fold. They don't necessarily know all the traffic laws either. And they are in a position to make judgement calls, like did you stop for a full three seconds at a stop sign, or did you pause and roll through? And even if you did, was it unsafe? An experience I had with a Summit County Deputy is a good example. I got off work near Park City at 2:00am. The only real traffic on the road was employees leaving the parking lot. There was a stop sign at the T in the road where our exit from work intersected the highway. I freely admit that I blew through the stop sign without even really slowing down. There was a set of lights about a mile down the road approaching me. Far enough that I could see lights, but there was no chance, even had he been doing 100 mph that he would hit me. About two miles down the road he caught up to me, pulled me over and approached the car. He laid out what happened, pretty much as I've described it, I said yes sir, that's pretty much exactly what happened. His response was reasonable, he said look...I realize at this time of night, with no traffic, what you did was not dangerous. But please, in the future, even if you don't stop, at least slow down enough that I can pretend that you did. And let me off with a warning.

That was bad enough, but about a week later, rolling towards home, just before getting to Henefer, he was coming towards me on the other side of the freeway. I was doing 80 in a 60 mph zone. Again, no traffic, straight road, no curves...I saw him pull down into the median to turn around and I pulled over before he even turned on his lights. He approached, said, don't I know you from last week? I said yes sir. He asked if I was aware of how fast I was going. I said yes sir, about 80. He said that's pretty much what I clocked you at, I know you're in a hurry to get home. Do me a favor and slow it down so you get there alive. I meekly said yes sir, I will. And he said if he caught me again, he'd most likely have to issue a citation. And he let me go. Yes, I was going too fast. No, I had no passengers, was cold sober, and the only one I was putting in danger was myself. He used his judgment and didn't ticket me.

You can bet that I didn't screw up again in his county in the almost 4 more years that I worked that shift and made that drive. I could see him shaking his head as he walked back to his SUV, and I''m sure he was chuckling at the coincidence of it being him catching me again.

Moral of the story. I'm always super polite, whether they are right or wrong. I admit to what I do, or don't do and talk to them like they deserve my respect. Even in the cases where I don't feel like they do. No, I didn't write to his Sargent, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted me to. But I still remember him, and think how lucky I was to get a lenient officer twice in a row. So Judgment isn't always a bad thing.

I never give an officer with a gun, taser and handcuffs a reason to want to be a jerk to me. They have the position of power. If they are reasonable and most of them are if treated right, then no problem. If there is an issue, I don't confront, I report my issue and let them handle it internally. I've done it exactly once. And I wasn't a jerk about it, because he wasn't one to me. He was wrong. Dead wrong. I did disagree with him, he told me to tell it to the judge and issued a citation. I told it to his Sargent instead, showed up to court, the officer wasn't there and the ticket was dismissed. I suspect that he got the message, though I don't know. Maybe he had a valid reason for not making it. But I didn't end up with a fine.

Mel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
quychang said:
bagpiper said:
quychang said:
Charles, you're absolutely right. I don't know the exact codes, or carry a flashcard. I probably should. But on the other hand, my hackles get raised by ignorance, particularly in someone who's job it is to KNOW the law, not make it up as they go.
I try to remember that even among college trained lawyers, there is a lot of specialization. Consider that most lawyers will specialize in areas like criminal defense, water rights, corporate law, property law, etc.

One of the problems with the change in vernacular from "Peace Officer" to "Law Enforcement Officer" is the subtle requirement to know all the laws. Think of Andy Griffin. How often did he cite code? He was keeping the peace. And there probably weren't too many laws on the books in Mayberry that didn't relate directly to keeping the peace. Complex matters like estate law or property law were matters for lawyer and judges, so long as those involved weren't getting into fist fights or worse.

Certainly, police officers need to have some minimum working knowledge of areas of law they routinely need to uphold: traffic laws, various breeches of the peace, and the basics of our gun laws. A polite officer who is honestly mistaken, gets my courtesy so long as he is willing to accept correction either from me or his superiors when I provide it. If I ever have a run in with a jerk who has a badge, your course of action would seem appropriate.

Charles
I guess one of my issues is two fold. They don't necessarily know all the traffic laws either. And they are in a position to make judgement calls, like did you stop for a full three seconds at a stop sign, or did you pause and roll through? And even if you did, was it unsafe? An experience I had with a Summit County Deputy is a good example. I got off work near Park City at 2:00am. The only real traffic on the road was employees leaving the parking lot. There was a stop sign at the T in the road where our exit from work intersected the highway. I freely admit that I blew through the stop sign without even really slowing down. There was a set of lights about a mile down the road approaching me. Far enough that I could see lights, but there was no chance, even had he been doing 100 mph that he would hit me. About two miles down the road he caught up to me, pulled me over and approached the car. He laid out what happened, pretty much as I've described it, I said yes sir, that's pretty much exactly what happened. His response was reasonable, he said look...I realize at this time of night, with no traffic, what you did was not dangerous. But please, in the future, even if you don't stop, at least slow down enough that I can pretend that you did. And let me off with a warning.

That was bad enough, but about a week later, rolling towards home, just before getting to Henefer, he was coming towards me on the other side of the freeway. I was doing 80 in a 60 mph zone. Again, no traffic, straight road, no curves...I saw him pull down into the median to turn around and I pulled over before he even turned on his lights. He approached, said, don't I know you from last week? I said yes sir. He asked if I was aware of how fast I was going. I said yes sir, about 80. He said that's pretty much what I clocked you at, I know you're in a hurry to get home. Do me a favor and slow it down so you get there alive. I meekly said yes sir, I will. And he said if he caught me again, he'd most likely have to issue a citation. And he let me go. Yes, I was going too fast. No, I had no passengers, was cold sober, and the only one I was putting in danger was myself. He used his judgment and didn't ticket me.

You can bet that I didn't screw up again in his county in the almost 4 more years that I worked that shift and made that drive. I could see him shaking his head as he walked back to his SUV, and I''m sure he was chuckling at the coincidence of it being him catching me again.

Moral of the story. I'm always super polite, whether they are right or wrong. I admit to what I do, or don't do and talk to them like they deserve my respect. Even in the cases where I don't feel like they do. No, I didn't write to his Sargent, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted me to. But I still remember him, and think how lucky I was to get a lenient officer twice in a row. So Judgment isn't always a bad thing.

I never give an officer with a gun, taser and handcuffs a reason to want to be a jerk to me. They have the position of power. If they are reasonable and most of them are if treated right, then no problem. If there is an issue, I don't confront, I report my issue and let them handle it internally. I've done it exactly once. And I wasn't a jerk about it, because he wasn't one to me. He was wrong. Dead wrong. I did disagree with him, he told me to tell it to the judge and issued a citation. I told it to his Sargent instead, showed up to court, the officer wasn't there and the ticket was dismissed. I suspect that he got the message, though I don't know. Maybe he had a valid reason for not making it. But I didn't end up with a fine.

Mel
Nothing against you, but I don't think he should have let you go for either of the incidents you describe. I think that letting people off when they violate the rules of traffic is exactly why people drive the way they do... badly. They've gotten away with it too long. Even I have. If the laws were enforced then we would all be driving more carefully. Of course, I would have to drive slower.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
You're right Althor. My wife was disgusted at my luck, especially the second time. But there really was no danger. If he had cleared the top of the hill 5 seconds later he would never have seen the missed stop, and frankly no one stopped for it unless there was a set of lights close. As for the speed. I freely admit I was driving way to fast. That was back in the 90's when I was a lot younger and more reckless. I rarely exceed the limit by more than 5mph these days, and honestly that only happens if I'm driving with the flow of traffic and don't notice. Usually I set the cruise control on the speed limit and watch what's going on around me. I used to do a lot of things differently than I would do them now. I'm not necessarily proud of all the things I got away cleanly on. But would you have said, no Deputy, I really think you need to ticket me?

Mel
 
21 - 32 of 32 Posts
Top