Carrying a firearm unloaded in vehicle

[nckheinrich]

Hey guys so I just came into a friendly argument via Ohio's definition of "unloaded." I though it changed about two years ago to allow carrying a magazine with ammunition in it as long as the magazine was not inserted into the firearm. To prove my point I looked up the ORC and I found http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.16 This goes with what I thought was the law before the change. Did the law ever change and I am incorrect or can someone point me in the right direction. I am specifically looking at section (K) (5) (a)

[SMMAssociates]

Hey guys so I just came into a friendly argument via Ohio's definition of "unloaded." I though it changed about two years ago to allow carrying a magazine with ammunition in it as long as the magazine was not inserted into the firearm. To prove my point I looked up the ORC and I found http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2923.16 This goes with what I thought was the law before the change. Did the law ever change and I am incorrect or can someone point me in the right direction. I am specifically looking at section (K) (5) (a)

nckheinrich:

Whether or not you're licensed determines where/how you can carry a firearm, but you no longer need to empty the magazine(s) to transport the firearm. An unlicensed individual can transport a firearm with loaded magazines, but must keep 'em separate (and nothing in the chamber). Licensees can transport or carry a loaded firearm with magazines in place in the firearm and loaded chambers, however, IMHO, if you are just transporting a firearm, having the gun unloaded and with an empty chamber still may be a good idea.

An unlicensed individual can carry a loaded firearm openly, but must unload it before getting into a vehicle, at which point the transport rules apply. A licensed individual can also Open Carry, but is not required to unload if entering a vehicle.

Kinda clear as mud, unfortunately, and note that the above refers to handguns.

Regards,

[MyWifeSaidYes]

BEFORE the change, the magazine or speedloader could NOT have any ammo in it, even if it was not in the firearm.

And the change applies to handguns AND long guns. You can have loaded mags for your rifle in your car if they are stored properly.

[sd790]

Stu:

A licensed person may transport a loaded handgun, but not a long gun. Even with a CHL, the magazine of a long gun must be removed from the long gun, although they may be stored/transported together. Unlicensed people must store/transport the two in separate fastened (button, Velcro, zipper) compartments.

[nckheinrich]

I actually have my CHL I was just curious where the relevant law change is located? From what I found in the ORC the definition is the same. Unless im just being a blind idiot and reading it wrong. If I am to understand this right basically for an unlicensed person they still can't ammo, magazine, and firearm together. This is the part I thought changed

"(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."

(K) As used in this section:

(1) "Motor vehicle," "street," and "highway" have the same meanings as in section 4511.01 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Occupied structure" has the same meaning as in section 2909.01 of the Revised Code.

(3) "Agriculture" has the same meaning as in section 519.01 of the Revised Code.

(4) "Tenant" has the same meaning as in section 1531.01 of the Revised Code.

(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.

[JustaShooter]

Remember, that's a part of "and one of the following applies". So yes, you can still empty the magazine/speedloaders, or you can store loaded mags in a compartment that can't be accessed without leaving the vehicle, or store them in a container that provides complete and separate enclosure as defined in the following section.

[SeanC]

An unlicensed individual can transport a firearm with loaded magazines, but must keep 'em separate (and nothing in the chamber).

There's an argument to be made that anyone can transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle if the firearm is inaccessible without leaving the vehicle. R.C. 2923.16(B) says:

No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.

Strangely, R.C. 2923.16(C) prohibits having a firearm in the vehicle unless it is unloaded and:

(1) In a closed package, box, or case;

(2) In a compartment that can be reached only by leaving the vehicle;

(3) In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder made for the purpose;

(4) If the firearm is at least twenty-four inches in overall length as measured from the muzzle to the part of the stock furthest from the muzzle and if the barrel is at least eighteen inches in length, either in plain sight with the action open or the weapon stripped, or, if the firearm is of a type on which the action will not stay open or which cannot easily be stripped, in plain sight.

You could read the two in conflict, where (B) says loaded is okay if inaccessible and (C) says loaded is never okay, only unloaded and transported in certain ways. That's ridiculous, though, as it renders (B) meaningless. I think you have to read them in harmony, where (B) says loaded is okay if inaccessible and (C) says accessible is okay, too, if unloaded and subject to certain restrictions.

[DontTreadOnMe]

There's an argument to be made that anyone can transport a loaded firearm in a vehicle if the firearm is inaccessible without leaving the vehicle. R.C. 2923.16(B) says:

No person shall knowingly transport or have a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle in such a manner that the firearm is accessible to the operator or any passenger without leaving the vehicle.

I disagree. 2923.16(C) clearly makes it illegal to transport a loaded firearm even if inaccessible without leaving the vehicle, unless one of the exceptions under (F) apply.

Division (B) doesn't make it legal to transport a loaded firearm only accessible by leaving the vehicle any more than division (D) makes it legal to transport a loaded firearm as long as the person isn't under the influence.

You could read the two in conflict, where (B) says loaded is okay if inaccessible and (C) says loaded is never okay, only unloaded and transported in certain ways. That's ridiculous, though, as it renders (B) meaningless. I think you have to read them in harmony, where (B) says loaded is okay if inaccessible and (C) says accessible is okay, too, if unloaded and subject to certain restrictions.

Division (B) doesn't say loaded is okay if inaccessible because it specifies what is illegal, not what's legal. (C) doesn't render (B) meaningless as there are different penalties to each (M4 vs F4).

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yep. "C" directly contradicts "B".

Been discussed before.

[schmieg]

Yep. "C" directly contradicts "B".

Been discussed before.

And (C) is specific while (B) is general. Go with the specific.

[Werz]

Yep. "C" directly contradicts "B".

Been discussed before.

And (C) is specific while (B) is general. Go with the specific.

Yep. Basic rule of statutory construction. R.C. 1.51. See also, State v. Volpe, 38 Ohio St.3d 191 (1988)

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Yep. Basic rule of statutory construction. R.C. 1.51. See also, State v. Volpe, 38 Ohio St.3d 191 (1988)

Now, see? That statute and case law should not be relevant here.

Neither 2923.16 (B) or (C) appear to be "special or local provisions" as used in R.C. 1.51.

R.C. 1.47 states that

"In enacting a statute, it is presumed that:

(A) Compliance with the constitutions of the state and of the United States is intended;

(B) The entire statute is intended to be effective;

(C) A just and reasonable result is intended;

(D) A result feasible of execution is intended.

R.C. 2923.16 FAILS on 1.47(B), (C) & (D)


And R.C. 1.49 states,

"If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider among other matters:

(A) The object sought to be attained;

(B) The circumstances under which the statute was enacted;

(C) The legislative history;

(D) The common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects;

(E) The consequences of a particular construction;

(F) The administrative construction of the statute.

R.C. 1.49 (E) &(F) should allow for interpreting 2923.16 as follows:

Section (B) ALLOWS a loaded firearm in a vehicle when it is INACCESSIBLE without leaving the vehicle, and

Section (C) ALLOWS A FIREARM TO BE ACCESSIBLE if it is unloaded and carried as specified.


I am not a judge nor even a lawyer, but common sense tells me THAT was the intention of the General Assembly when you consider R.C. 1.47 and 1.49 instead of just focusing on 1.51.

[DontTreadOnMe]

Section (B) ALLOWS a loaded firearm in a vehicle when it is INACCESSIBLE without leaving the vehicle

No it doesn't, no matter how big you make the text. It prohibits. It doesn't allow. Just because something is not prohibited in one section of a statute doesn't make it allowed, it just makes it not prohibited by that section.

Both (B) and (C) prohibit a loaded firearm in the vehicle that is accessible without leaving the vehicle.
Only (C) prohibits a loaded firearm in the vehicle that is inaccessible without leaving the vehicle.

Violating (B) is a F4. Violating (C) is a M4. Therefore:

Having a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is accessible without leaving the vehicle is an F4.
Having a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is not accessible without leaving the vehicle is an M4.

[MacDonald]

Section (B) ALLOWS a loaded firearm in a vehicle when it is INACCESSIBLE without leaving the vehicle

No it doesn't, no matter how big you make the text. It prohibits. It doesn't allow. Just because something is not prohibited in one section of a statute doesn't make it allowed, it just makes it not prohibited by that section.

Both (B) and (C) prohibit a loaded firearm in the vehicle that is accessible without leaving the vehicle.
Only (C) prohibits a loaded firearm in the vehicle that is inaccessible without leaving the vehicle.

Violating (B) is a F4. Violating (C) is a M4. Therefore:

Having a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is accessible without leaving the vehicle is an F4.
Having a loaded firearm in a vehicle that is not accessible without leaving the vehicle is an M4.

Now THAT makes sense!
...and, No, I am not being sarcastic. I am not sure when/if this interpretation would occur to me.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

Section (B) ALLOWS a loaded firearm in a vehicle when it is INACCESSIBLE without leaving the vehicle

No it doesn't, no matter how big you make the text. It prohibits. It doesn't allow. Just because something is not prohibited in one section of a statute doesn't make it allowed, it just makes it not prohibited by that section.

You should read my entire post.

You will notice that I stated, right before the larger text:

R.C. 1.49 (E) &(F) should allow for interpreting 2923.16 as follows:

Should. I said "should".