If I may............... I don't think those who carry mags unloaded are doing it because they think they have to by law. Sure, some may, but those who have chosen to do so even after knowing the law do it as a matter of convenience to themselves and for safety measures. Safety measures meaning, why put something up for misinterpretation if you don't have to. Sure if a LEO pulls you over and you have loaded mags, legally you're in your right to do so. Let's say if said LEO isn't sure or doesn't see it that way. Why in the hell would you want to have the hassles and time wasted associated with proving/disproving anything?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me. Here's another example.

 

Several years ago, my son and I went to our one and only Eagles home game. It's the Monday night game they were playing Dallas. My son has been a Dallas fan from the time he started talking. I have no idea why. Anyway, he wanted to wear his Dallas gear. Although he was well within his right to do so and should have been able to without question, I forbid him to do so, because I knew I'd spend most of the game defending him, probably getting into a fight and being tossed out of the stadium or even worse. I told him he didn't have to wear Eagles gear, but he was not wearing anything that resembled being a Dallas fan. He was 6 or 7 at the time. Turns out, this is the game that forced Veterans Stadium to put the judge and court right in the stadium. I've never seen so much violence in my life. We were in the 700-level and continued to see people getting beaten and thrown down the steps. We left right after halftime, because I was fearing for our personal safety at that time. If he had worn his Dallas gear, it would have been much worse. Even though he was within his legal right to do so, I had enough sense to anticipate realistic and probable results of his actions if he so chose to wear that gear.

 

So, I'll say again. Why purposely put yourself in a situation that has a good or probable chance of disrupting your peace if you get pulled over.

It is the possible interpretation that loaded mag + unloaded gun in same case or in close proximity = loaded gun

 

IMO No. There is nothing in the statutes that comes close to being interpreted this way. The gun just has to be unloaded, period. A loaded firearm is one that has a round in the chamber, and/or has a loaded mag, belt, container, etc attached in a way where it is ready to allow the gun to fire upon charging the weapon. If the mag is not attached to the gun, there is no way the ammo can jump into the gun, hence the gun is unloaded.

 

 

It is the possible interpretation that loaded mag + unloaded gun in same case or in close proximity = loaded gun

 

It is not possible within the confines of the LAW....

Because abiding by laws that do not exist borderline paranoia... NJ defines firearm... Clearly... A loaded mag has NOTHING to do with a loaded gun... Period... How can following a non existent law create a special cushion... It is a law.... Or it is not... And in this case it is not... Do you drive 10mph under the speed limit out of fear that going the speed limit might be viewed in the sense that you are about to speed? Want to transport mags unloaded? Go for it... But don't trick yourself into thinking it matters... If you are doing things legally you should not be so fearful... Like I said... It borders paranoia...

 

 

If I may............... I don't think those who carry mags unloaded are doing it because they think they have to by law. Sure, some may, but those who have chosen to do so even after knowing the law do it as a matter of convenience to themselves and for safety measures. Safety measures meaning, why put something up for misinterpretation if you don't have to. Sure if a LEO pulls you over and you have loaded mags, legally you're in your right to do so. Let's say if said LEO isn't sure or doesn't see it that way. Why in the hell would you want to have the hassles and time wasted associated with proving/disproving anything?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me. Here's another example.

 

Several years ago, my son and I went to our one and only Eagles home game. It's the Monday night game they were playing Dallas. My son has been a Dallas fan from the time he started talking. I have no idea why. Anyway, he wanted to wear his Dallas gear. Although he was well within his right to do so and should have been able to without question, I forbid him to do so, because I knew I'd spend most of the game defending him, probably getting into a fight and being tossed out of the stadium or even worse. I told him he didn't have to wear Eagles gear, but he was not wearing anything that resembled being a Dallas fan. He was 6 or 7 at the time. Turns out, this is the game that forced Veterans Stadium to put the judge and court right in the stadium. I've never seen so much violence in my life. We were in the 700-level and continued to see people getting beaten and thrown down the steps. We left right after halftime, because I was fearing for our personal safety at that time. If he had worn his Dallas gear, it would have been much worse. Even though he was within his legal right to do so, I had enough sense to anticipate realistic and probable results of his actions if he so chose to wear that gear.

 

So, I'll say again. Why purposely put yourself in a situation that has a good or probable chance of disrupting your peace if you get pulled over.

If I may............... I don't think those who carry mags unloaded are doing it because they think they have to by law. Sure, some may, but those who have chosen to do so even after knowing the law do it as a matter of convenience to themselves and for safety measures. Safety measures meaning, why put something up for misinterpretation if you don't have to. Sure if a LEO pulls you over and you have loaded mags, legally you're in your right to do so. Let's say if said LEO isn't sure or doesn't see it that way. Why in the hell would you want to have the hassles and time wasted associated with proving/disproving anything?

 

It just doesn't make sense to me. Here's another example.

 

Several years ago, my son and I went to our one and only Eagles home game. It's the Monday night game they were playing Dallas. My son has been a Dallas fan from the time he started talking. I have no idea why. Anyway, he wanted to wear his Dallas gear. Although he was well within his right to do so and should have been able to without question, I forbid him to do so, because I knew I'd spend most of the game defending him, probably getting into a fight and being tossed out of the stadium or even worse. I told him he didn't have to wear Eagles gear, but he was not wearing anything that resembled being a Dallas fan. He was 6 or 7 at the time. Turns out, this is the game that forced Veterans Stadium to put the judge and court right in the stadium. I've never seen so much violence in my life. We were in the 700-level and continued to see people getting beaten and thrown down the steps. We left right after halftime, because I was fearing for our personal safety at that time. If he had worn his Dallas gear, it would have been much worse. Even though he was within his legal right to do so, I had enough sense to anticipate realistic and probable results of his actions if he so chose to wear that gear.

 

So, I'll say again. Why purposely put yourself in a situation that has a good or probable chance of disrupting your peace if you get pulled over.

 

I'd use your example as one regarding being discrete with the transportation of guns. I agree with that. No need to flaunt or draw attention to the fact that you are legally transporting guns. If you had a sign on your car saying "transporting guns", that's RAS enough to get pulled over and scrutinized.

 

Besides being discrete, I'm not going to waste my time with trying to adhere to fictitious LE scenarios based on what LE might or might not think that was the law. Its bad enough many of them don't understand our confusing gun laws as it is, no need to feed into that.

 

Otherwise, provided you are transporting within the rules of law, LE can do nothing. If they try, the prosecutor will throw out the charges or they will look like a fool in front of the judge.

I'd use your example as one regarding being discrete with the transportation of guns. I agree with that. No need to flaunt or draw attention to the fact that you are legally transporting guns. If you had a sign on your car saying "transporting guns", that's RAS enough to get pulled over and scrutinized.

 

Besides being discrete, I'm not going to waste my time with trying to adhere to fictitious LE scenarios based on what LE might or might not think that was the law. Its bad enough many of them don't understand our confusing gun laws as it is, no need to feed into that.

 

Otherwise, provided you are transporting within the rules of law, LE can do nothing. If they try, the prosecutor will throw out the charges or they will look like a fool in front of the judge.

 

 

And that was my only point in my response. Thanks, I do like the choice of "discrete" as being a more appropriate term. As far as the prosecutor, that's my other point. Right or wrong, why would you want to increase your chances of having to waste all this time in letigation, whether you're right or wrong?

It is the possible interpretation that loaded mag + unloaded gun in same case or in close proximity = loaded gun

 

I have never been able to shoot from a Magazine, so until you can, a magazine is not a gun.

Because abiding by laws that do not exist borderline paranoia... NJ defines firearm... Clearly... A loaded mag has NOTHING to do with a loaded gun... Period... How can following a non existent law create a special cushion... It is a law.... Or it is not... And in this case it is not... Do you drive 10mph under the speed limit out of fear that going the speed limit might be viewed in the sense that you are about to speed? Want to transport mags unloaded? Go for it... But don't trick yourself into thinking it matters... If you are doing things legally you should not be so fearful... Like I said... It borders paranoia...

 

 

Not the same thing. Being under/over the speed limit is pretty exact. You either are or you're not, based on the equipment the LEO is using vs. the speed limit of the road on which you're traveling. There's not much up for interpretation in the field. No one is going to hassle you because he/she is unsure of the laws governing speeding. Not true concerning loaded/unloaded mags as far as I'm concerned. Again, why potentially waste time/effort putting yourself in a potential situation that can be very easily avoided.

 

 

If I was a rookie LEO and pulled you over and was made aware of the fact that you had loaded magazines with you, I may have an issue with that, if I was unclear of the law. So, let's go with that. Now, I see you as doing something illegal and I'm going to either detain you or take you in or call for backup or something that's going to disrupt whatever you were planning to do for some period of time. You'll tell me you're legal (again, assume I'm the rookie LEO) and I'm unsure of the legality and may or may not try to find out right then and there. What satisfaction do you have at this point? You know you're right, but at this particular time, who cares? It's not doing you a damn bit of good. If you wouldn't have had those mags loaded, your chances of this scenario go down drastically.

 

So now, you've wasted some period of time on the street and possibly been taken downtown long enough for me to find out that you did nothing wrong. Again, so what? What was gained? You were right. Big deal. You've lost time, gotten aggravated and who knows what else. For what?

 

Do you see what I'm saying? Do you really think that borderlines be paranoid or just being a bit discrete?

After reading through this thread, and this_is_nascar last post about the Eagles game, I think I can make a comparison.

 

This 'loaded magazines' vs. 'unloaded magazines' while traveling debate is much the same as 'open carry' vs 'not open carrying'.

 

People are afraid to open carry because of the potential to be hassled. Just like people are afraid to travel with loaded magazines because of a potential to be hassled. It really has nothing to do with breaking the law as much as it is not wanting to run into someone who is ignorant of the law. That is all. Not much more to it IMO.

After reading through this thread, and this_is_nascar last post about the Eagles game, I think I can make a comparison.

 

This 'loaded magazines' vs. 'unloaded magazines' while traveling debate is much the same as 'open carry' vs 'not open carrying'.

 

People are afraid to open carry because of the potential to be hassled. Just like people are afraid to travel with loaded magazines because of a potential to be hassled. It really has nothing to do with breaking the law as much as it is not wanting to run into someone who is ignorant of the law. That is all. Not much more to it IMO.

 

 

Exactly. My last post gets into that aspect.

And that was my only point in my response. Thanks, I do like the choice of "discrete" as being a more appropriate term. As far as the prosecutor, that's my other point. Right or wrong, why would you want to increase your chances of having to waste all this time in letigation, whether you're right or wrong?

 

BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW SAYING A LOADED MAGAZINE IS A LOADED GUN

BECAUSE NJ DEFINES THE WORD GUN

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE LAW SHOWING PROSECUTION FOR A LOADED MAG WHILE TRAVELING WITHIN THE LAW

BECAUSE COMPLYING WITH NON EXISTENT LAWS DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY SAFER FROM PROSECUTION

BECAUSE BEING FEARFUL OF PROSECUTION WHEN YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT IS HONESTLY BORDERLINE PARANOIA

BECAUSE FURTHERING RUMORS ABOUT "BEING SAFE" WHEN THERE IS NO LEGAL STANDING ONLY CREATES MORE CONFUSION...

 

need I go on? it is your right to transport however you like.. within the law.. but you are NOT ANY SAFER DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW SAYING A LOADED MAGAZINE IS A LOADED GUN

BECAUSE NJ DEFINES THE WORD GUN

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE LAW SHOWING PROSECUTION FOR A LOADED MAG WHILE TRAVELING WITHIN THE LAW

BECAUSE COMPLYING WITH NON EXISTENT LAWS DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY SAFER FROM PROSECUTION

BECAUSE BEING FEARFUL OF PROSECUTION WHEN YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT IS HONESTLY BORDERLINE PARANOIA

BECAUSE FURTHERING RUMORS ABOUT "BEING SAFE" WHEN THERE IS NO LEGAL STANDING ONLY CREATES MORE CONFUSION...

 

need I go on? it is your right to transport however you like.. within the law.. but you are NOT ANY SAFER DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

 

If I was a rookie LEO and pulled you over and was made aware of the fact that you had loaded magazines with you, I may have an issue with that, if I was unclear of the law. So, let's go with that. Now, I see you as doing something illegal and I'm going to either detain you or take you in or call for backup or something that's going to disrupt whatever you were planning to do for some period of time. You'll tell me you're legal (again, assume I'm the rookie LEO) and I'm unsure of the legality and may or may not try to find out right then and there. What satisfaction do you have at this point? You know you're right, but at this particular time, who cares? It's not doing you a damn bit of good. If you wouldn't have had those mags loaded, your chances of this scenario go down drastically.

 

So now, you've wasted some period of time on the street and possibly been taken downtown long enough for me to find out that you did nothing wrong. Again, so what? What was gained? You were right. Big deal. You've lost time, gotten aggravated and who knows what else. For what?

 

Do you see what I'm saying? Do you really think that borderlines be paranoid or just being a bit discrete?

 

I think it is completely and totally paranoid.. and I think the state of NJ has guilted you into absurd behavior.. that is my HONEST answer..

 

"a rookie cop" might detain you because he believes your saiga is an AK47.. so you better sell it before you get hassled.. you have IMO a FAR greater chances catching a glance over an "evil black rifle" than you do some loaded mags on the way to the range..

BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW SAYING A LOADED MAGAZINE IS A LOADED GUN

BECAUSE NJ DEFINES THE WORD GUN

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CASE LAW SHOWING PROSECUTION FOR A LOADED MAG WHILE TRAVELING WITHIN THE LAW

BECAUSE COMPLYING WITH NON EXISTENT LAWS DOES NOT MAKE YOU ANY SAFER FROM PROSECUTION

BECAUSE BEING FEARFUL OF PROSECUTION WHEN YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT IS HONESTLY BORDERLINE PARANOIA

BECAUSE FURTHERING RUMORS ABOUT "BEING SAFE" WHEN THERE IS NO LEGAL STANDING ONLY CREATES MORE CONFUSION...

 

need I go on? it is your right to transport however you like.. within the law.. but you are NOT ANY SAFER DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

 

 

You're missing my point. My point has nothing to do with what you and I know to be the law. If I'm not making myself clear enough to understand with my last few posts, I'll never be able to.

After reading through this thread, and this_is_nascar last post about the Eagles game, I think I can make a comparison.

 

This 'loaded magazines' vs. 'unloaded magazines' while traveling debate is much the same as 'open carry' vs 'not open carrying'.

 

People are afraid to open carry because of the potential to be hassled. Just like people are afraid to travel with loaded magazines because of a potential to be hassled. It really has nothing to do with breaking the law as much as it is not wanting to run into someone who is ignorant of the law. That is all. Not much more to it IMO.

 

and the unfortunate casualty of that mindset is law abiding gun owners.. the more we fear.. and back off of OUR rights when there is no legal grounds to.. the more we mystify firearms.. and sweep them under the carpet.. the easier it is to sneak in laws that actually FORCE you to do what is now not forced..

 

everyone hears nappen say keep unloaded mags..

next the range officer is saying how bad they are..

then an instructor is teaching people they are illegal..

 

next thing you know... MAKING people transport unloaded mags kind of seems like a "good idea" and it is tacked onto some obnoxious feel good gun legislation...

 

like I said transport how you like.. but don't further rumors that an unloaded magazine is somehow safer.. instead.. KNOW THE LAW.. KNOW YOUR RIGHT... IMO of course..

We can agree to disagree, but that's OK.

You're missing my point. My point has nothing to do with what you and I know to be the law. If I'm not making myself clear enough to understand with my last few posts, I'll never be able to.

 

you do something that I view as an inconvenience because you perceive that it will avoid confrontation.. and what I am telling you.. is that evil black russian rifle is bound to cause a hell of a lot more suspicion than some loaded mags.. and the issue I have is fear of potential prosecution and or hassle is what is causing you to do it.. and I am telling you I totally disagree.. your mags are out of sight anyway.. so if LEO even knows you HAVE magazines.. well then you are already in the process of being delayed.. because that means you have raised some other kind of red flag in which they are searching your car.. if you have done something to get LEO to search your car I am under the opinion that mags loaded or not are going to be MOOT by that point..

 

you are NOT going to be driving down the street.. get pulled over for a brake light.. and announce you have loaded magazines in the trunk?

We can agree to disagree, but that's OK.

 

give me a logical scenario.. where you are just cruising to the range.. and end up being delayed because of a loaded magazine? like in your mind how does it go down?

 

you are going a LITTLE fast on the parkway..

you are pulled over and they ask for license registration and insurance..

 

now in what instance would you be on your way.. but all of the sudden you are delayed because of these loaded magazines? I am NOT breaking balls.. I am genuinely curious about how you envision it going down..

I certainly agree with you vlad, but I will say, even though I disagree with other peoples reason to not carry loaded magazines, or not open carry where they legally can, I wouldn't go as far to say it is paranoid, or without merit. Though not with this loaded magazine thing (that I know of) there are plenty of instances of other things, that people have been harassed, arrested, and prosecuted over even when they were right.

 

With that said, personally, I don't give in, and don't for the reasons you said.

I certainly agree with you vlad, but I will say, even though I disagree with other peoples reason to not carry loaded magazines, or not open carry where they legally can, I wouldn't go as far to say it is paranoid, or without merit. Though not with this loaded magazine thing (that I know of) there are plenty of instances of other things, that people have been harassed, arrested, and prosecuted over even when they were right.

 

With that said, personally, I don't give in, and don't for the reasons you said.

 

+1

OK, I'll play, because that may be a better way for me to get my point across.

 

I'm driving to the range and get pull over for............ let's say a broken tail light. Officer asks for my normal stuff and asks me how I'm doing. I say, fine. He asks where I'm going. I tell him I'm going to the range. He say, Oh OK. Do you have any weopons with you? Sure, I have my Ruger Mark III with me officer.

 

I can't imagine any officer that's not up to date on NJ firearms laws leaving it go at that. So, now he wants to see it and start's poking around in the bag. Oh, what's this Mr. Nascar? Those are my mags for the gun officer. Do you always keep bullets in those mags Mr. Nascar? Why yes, officer. It's perfectly within my legal rights to do so, based on NJ Fireams laws. We'll Mr. Nascar, I'm not totally sure about that...................................................................

 

Right then and there, we're in the scenio I've been trying to explain.

I am NOT breaking balls.. I am genuinely curious about how you envision it going down..

 

 

I understand that you're not breaking my balls and I appreciate that. I'm just bothered that I can't seem to convey my point properly.

Luckily people like us have a place like this to look to. Now if we take that knowledge and pass it on we're all doing our cause justice.

 

The only way things will change is if we educate people on what responsible gun ownership is. I'm the first person to take someone shooting the first time and walk them through the process. If we show people our side it won't be the evil the media portrays. I've only been a gun owner for about a year and a half but I've helped quite a few people see the light and pursue gun ownership. I have one friend that jumped down my throat like I was evil when I first bought a gun and now he wants to go to the range. We need to be ambassadors for our sport and hobby.

I agree with both points made. Vlad makes great points but like NASCAR we've all run into an over zealous police officer at some point (or a few points) in our lives.

OK, I'll play, because that may be a better way for me to get my point across.

 

I'm driving to the range and get pull over for............ let's say a broken tail light. Officer asks for my normal stuff and asks me how I'm doing. I say, fine. He asks where I'm going. I tell him I'm going to the range. He say, Oh OK. Do you have any weopons with you? Sure, I have my Ruger Mark III with me officer.

 

I can't imagine any officer that's not up to date on NJ firearms laws leaving it go at that. So, now he wants to see it and start's poking around in the bag. Oh, what's this Mr. Nascar? Those are my mags for the gun officer. Do you always keep bullets in those mags Mr. Nascar? Why yes, officer. It's perfectly within my legal rights to do so, based on NJ Fireams laws. We'll Mr. Nascar, I'm not totally sure about that...................................................................

 

Right then and there, we're in the scenio I've been trying to explain.

"am i under arrest? am I being detained? Can I go now? you have my address, you know what I look like, you know what car I'm driving, i already told you where I'm going. Here's a printout of the statute...I just wanna get to the range before it gets too crowded."

Then, you assume the position and get ready to spend the whole day sitting in jail while they clear this up.

OK, I'll play, because that may be a better way for me to get my point across.

 

I'm driving to the range and get pull over for............ let's say a broken tail light. Officer asks for my normal stuff and asks me how I'm doing. I say, fine. He asks where I'm going. I tell him I'm going to the range. He say, Oh OK. Do you have any weopons with you? Sure, I have my Ruger Mark III with me officer.

 

I can't imagine any officer that's not up to date on NJ firearms laws leaving it go at that. So, now he wants to see it and start's poking around in the bag. Oh, what's this Mr. Nascar? Those are my mags for the gun officer. Do you always keep bullets in those mags Mr. Nascar? Why yes, officer. It's perfectly within my legal rights to do so, based on NJ Fireams laws. We'll Mr. Nascar, I'm not totally sure about that...................................................................

 

Right then and there, we're in the scenio I've been trying to explain.

 

See, here is the problem. I know at least I, was operating under the impression you knew of your rights. If you are going to be offering information and telling an officer on a traffic stop you have firearms, and then allow him to search your vehicle, then we can't help you.

 

Me, on the other hand, know my rights, and am not going to willingly giving them up for no reason. I don't understand why you would do this?

 

The scenario should be more like

 

I'm driving to the range and get pull over for............ let's say a broken tail light. Officer asks for my normal stuff and asks me how I'm doing. I hand him my license, registration, and insurance. He asks me where I am going. I ask him if he needs anything else. He says hold on, I'll be right back. He goes to his car and does whatever. He comes back and issues me a warning/citation/nothing, and gives me my information back and bids me a good day.

 

Nowhere does the fact I have firearms in my vehicle come up, because it is irrelevant. But if you want to talk yourself into possible trouble just to be nice, go for it.

Me, on the other hand, know my rights, and am not going to willingly giving them up for no reason. I don't understand why you would do this?

Because if you (3rd person) know you did nothing wrong and have nothing to hide, you'll answer questions honestly like it's no big deal.

If you try to act like a jerk with an attitude like "yeah, i know my rights and the law..." it could possibly inconvenience you when the cop starts thinking you're breaking his balls over a simple question. He could take his time writing whatever ticket, call a supervisor to the scene to make sure he can let you go, call the prosecutor and wait for a response, or do some other thing to break your balls.

 

I'm driving to the range and get pull over for............ let's say a broken tail light. Officer asks for my normal stuff and asks me how I'm doing. I say, fine. He asks where I'm going. I tell him I'm going to the range. He say, Oh OK. Do you have any weopons with you? Sure, I have my Ruger Mark III with me officer. May I see it? I understand you have a job to do, sir, but I cannot give permission to you to search my vehicle. Will there be anything else?

 

Fixed. No need to be a dick on the stop and refuse to answer questions.

So, now he wants to see it and start's poking around in the bag.

 

 

I understand what you're trying to say, but that is your mistake right there. I am a very law abiding person, but I am not going to easily give up my constitutional right. The LEO has no probable cause to poke around in the bag, so it is an illegal search unless I give him permission. I will not give him permission.

 

Last Friday I went to a range to try out my new Remington 870. On the way home, I stopped 1) at bank, 2) to get flowers for my wife, and 3) to get coffee at DD. My shotgun was unloaded and in a case. The ammo was in a separate case. It occurred to me that I might possibly be violating some code by not going directly home from the range. It also occurred to me that traffic is horrible in NJ on a Friday afternoon in December, and it was not convenient for me to go home, and then go back out to run those errands. So I did what was convenient for me because I am not going to let vagueness in the law (what is a reasonably necessary deviation) scare me or inconvenience me.

I understand what you're trying to say, but that is your mistake right there. I am a very law abiding person, but I am not going to easily give up my constitutional right. The LEO has no probable cause to poke around in the bag, so it is an illegal search unless I give him permission. I will not give him permission.

 

Last Friday I went to a range to try out my new Remington 870. On the way home, I stopped 1) at bank, 2) to get flowers for my wife, and 3) to get coffee at DD. My shotgun was unloaded and in a case. The ammo was in a separate case. It occurred to me that I might possibly be violating some code by not going directly home from the range. It also occurred to me that traffic is horrible in NJ on a Friday afternoon in December, and it was not convenient for me to go home, and then go back out to run those errands. So I did what was convenient for me because I am not going to let vagueness in the law (what is a reasonably necessary deviation) scare me or inconvenience me.

 

It's a long gun, not the same rules as a hand gun, but if your not going directly to and from the range it is a good Idea to have your FID with you.