PA definition of "loaded" for a non-detachable magazine; relevant case law

**pex** · April 16th, 2008, 11:00 PM

18PA6102:

"Loaded." A firearm is loaded if the firing
chamber, the nondetachable magazine or, in the
case of a revolver, any of the chambers of the
cylinder contain ammunition capable of being
fired. In the case of a firearm which utilizes a
detachable magazine, the term shall mean a
magazine suitable for use in said firearm which
magazine contains such ammunition and has
been inserted in the firearm or is in the same
container or, where the container has multiple
compartments, the same compartment thereof
as the firearm.

Italicized emphasises are mine.

What does case law say about the definition of "capable of being fired"? Does anyone know of any firearm with a nondetachable magazine that would allow the round to be fired without user intervention (for example, some sort of novel autoloading mechanism combined with a lack of trigger/hammer block that would cause an arm to be chambered and fireable as dropped or jarred, or as another example, a semi-automatic firearm with a currently open bolt and cartridges in a fixed magazine that could become loaded and jarred into firing which would otherwise be reasonably unlikely on a closed bolt)? If no such device is known, and without relevant case law, I would presume some ill-directed legislators wrote this so that if a cartridge were only fireable on the moon, it could contribute to a loadable condition.

Please notate relevant case law you're familiar with. Sometimes even contrary to "common sense", the results of a court are wacky.

**MTechnik** · April 16th, 2008, 11:51 PM

Ok, IANAL, but I'd guess that they mean "live" ammo as opposed to "snap caps" or something like that.

**Philadelphia** · April 17th, 2008, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by pex

18PA6102:

Italicized emphasises are mine.

What does case law say about the definition of "capable of being fired"? Does anyone know of any firearm with a nondetachable magazine that would allow the round to be fired without user intervention (for example, some sort of novel autoloading mechanism combined with a lack of trigger/hammer block that would cause an arm to be chambered and fireable as dropped or jarred, or as another example, a semi-automatic firearm with a currently open bolt and cartridges in a fixed magazine that could become loaded and jarred into firing which would otherwise be reasonably unlikely on a closed bolt)? If no such device is known, and without relevant case law, I would presume some ill-directed legislators wrote this so that if a cartridge were only fireable on the moon, it could contribute to a loadable condition.

Please notate relevant case law you're familiar with. Sometimes even contrary to "common sense", the results of a court are wacky.

It has to mean what it says to a person of reasonable intelligence. I hope I qualify

If a rifle with a non-detachable magazine has ammunition in it, and that ammunition is capable of being fired (as in it's real, live ammo -- just so there's no prosecutorial discretion as to what constitutes ammunition -- if it's say a snap cap or other form of inert round, that's not ammunition), the gun is loaded.

My speculation is they want/need to specify ammunition capable of being fired to, for example, distinguish other areas of criminal law where if something looks like a gun it's a gun, even if it's not really a gun. For this provision, the harm to be avoided isn't what it looks like but what it really is.

**pex** · April 17th, 2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

It has to mean what it says to a person of reasonable intelligence. I hope I qualify

Like the judge of reasonable intelligence who decided that PSP can have a registry? I don't think this is clear and I desire case law for this and other related reasons.

If you go with a "reasonable intelligence" standard, such clarification on what ammunition might be, to a person of reasonable intelligence, would not be required. Ammunition is not some collections of parts that 'looks right'.

For this provision, the harm to be avoided isn't what it looks like but what it really is.

What standard then led you to this conclusion?

These minor quirks are what allow for egregious re-representations of the law, and I am interested if that's the way they've been approached in courts.

I see there is a lack of definition in the UFA of ammunition, which would obviously have been a better choice for clarification than the description of loaded.

**Philadelphia** · April 17th, 2008, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by pex

Like the judge of reasonable intelligence who decided that PSP can have a registry?

That's not a criminal statute. Just like the tax code, laws can be as complex as you like, but if you plan to deprive someone of their liberty as a punishment (criminal laws), especially without a specific intent requirement, due process requires that you not make the prohibited conduct a mystery.

I don't think this is clear and I desire case law for this and other related reasons.

If you go with a "reasonable intelligence" standard, such clarification on what ammunition might be, to a person of reasonable intelligence, would not be required. Ammunition is not some collections of parts that 'looks right'.

What standard then led you to this conclusion?

These minor quirks are what allow for egregious re-representations of the law, and I am interested if that's the way they've been approached in courts.

I see there is a lack of definition in the UFA of ammunition, which would obviously have been a better choice for clarification than the description of loaded.

OKey dokey. I'm not sure of your purpose, but under this statute, if you put live rounds in the gun, it is loaded. Doesn't matter what you have to do to it to make it fire -- it is loaded. Does that differ markedly from your understanding as to what the commonly accepted definition of loaded means? As a quirk, if you put live rounds in a detachable magazine and that magazine is in the same compartment as the gun, it is loaded. That's a little weird, but that's what it says.

If you want to press a different interpretation of the statute, I can't help. Sorry.

**pex** · April 17th, 2008, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

Does that differ markedly from your understanding as to what the commonly accepted definition of loaded means?

Perhaps I've all this time had a misunderstanding of the commonly accepted definition of loaded. I would presume that loaded means that a round is chambered or will otherwise fire if the firing mechanism/assembly, most likely beginning from a trigger pull, causes the firing mechanism to strike the cartridge of ammunition and fire it, if it were free of any known safety mechanisms preventing that firing.

You can't fire ammunition from your magazine under the standard function of most firearms. To fire those ammunition, you would need to perform some other action to ready it so that the firing assembly could activate the cartridge.

That means that, to me, the definition in 6102 would be a specific recharacterization of what would otherwise be a commonly accepted meaning of loaded.

Because one cannot fire a cartridge in a magazine, but can fire a chambered cartridge (generally), I would presume that a or several legislators could have considered firearms or conditions of firearms that may operate outside this generality, instead of deciding simply to redefine "loaded". For example, maybe that is to notate scenarios where a cartridge is chambered but various 'safety' mechanisms may be in play to prevent firing, maybe legislators decided these as potentially failing mechanical issues, which, if removed, would allow a firing assembly to fire the chambered cartridge.

I realize it's unlikely but not impossible, and I would be curious to know if a court saw it other that what I expect to hear is the 'common sense' reading.

**Philadelphia** · April 17th, 2008, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by pex

Perhaps I've all this time had a misunderstanding of the commonly accepted definition of loaded. I would presume that loaded means that a round is chambered or will otherwise fire if the firing mechanism/assembly, most likely beginning from a trigger pull, causes the firing mechanism to strike the cartridge of ammunition and fire it, if it were free of any known safety mechanisms preventing that firing.

You can't fire ammunition from your magazine under the standard function of most firearms. To fire those ammunition, you would need to perform some other action to ready it so that the firing assembly could activate the cartridge.

That means that, to me, the definition in 6102 would be a specific recharacterization of what would otherwise be a commonly accepted meaning of loaded.

Because one cannot fire a cartridge in a magazine, but can fire a chambered cartridge (generally), I would presume that a or several legislators could have considered firearms or conditions of firearms that may operate outside this generality, instead of deciding simply to redefine "loaded". For example, maybe that is to notate scenarios where a cartridge is chambered but various 'safety' mechanisms may be in play to prevent firing, maybe legislators decided these as potentially failing mechanical issues, which, if removed, would allow a firing assembly to fire the chambered cartridge.

I realize it's unlikely but not impossible, and I would be curious to know if a court saw it other that what I expect to hear is the 'common sense' reading.

Dude, you're obviously smarter than me.

You're on your own.

**Carnes** · April 17th, 2008, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by pex

Perhaps I've all this time had a misunderstanding of the commonly accepted definition of loaded. I would presume that loaded means that a round is chambered...

It seems that you may be thinking of a military or some other group's definition of loaded.

I know that in the Army, the weapon is not really loaded until a round is in the chamber, as per, 'Lock and Load.' Although in reality, the modern Army uses numbered or color coded 'conditions' that the weapon can be in. These conditions always account for whether or not the chamber contains a cartridge.

I think that 6102 is indeed a different characterization of what loaded means when compared to military folk, or well trained tactical security/LEO or whatver... but I bet they would argue that there is not a specific universal meaning for the term loaded, and thus they had to develop a definition specific to the regulation.

I'm not sure I understand what your goal/argument is here. Is there something you want to do, but do not feel confident doing due to the laungage in the statute? Or are you upset because you do not agree with the definition they used?

If its just that you disagree with the definition, and if you cannot find any case law, scrape some cash together, call the police and tell them that you will be driving around with an 'unloaded' AR that has a full magazine in locked in the mag-well. You may well be able to force a change to the statute. Be sure to talk at length with an attorney first.