Messages
16,972
Reactions
41,158
1670454677843.jpeg
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
Exactly. I could care less how this little joke of a measure was written.

I don’t have to prove my innocence. You gotta prove my guilt.
I have my proof with me at all times - an unrebutted eye witness with personal knowledge that those mags were in my lawful possession prior to the effective date. They have no evidence to the contrary.
 
Messages
99
Reactions
127
This was my thought as well; however, I read the measure's text related to this topic, and unfortunately, the defined standard is "Affirmative Defense". To summarize, you acknowledge guilt but show proof of your ownership/acquisition of standard capacity mags prior to 114's effective date to pursue a reduction and/or waiver of all corresponding charges. Legal folks, please correct my interpretation/understanding as needed.
Not quite - with an affirmative defense you are not acknowledging guilt, you are just saying the allegation is irrelevant because of X. As I noted in another reply, I am confident defending with my unrebutted testimony as an eyewitness with personal knowledge, that that those mags were in my lawful possession prior to the effective date. They have no evidence to the contrary. Motion to Dismiss time.
 
Messages
830
Reactions
1,125
Do you have an example that isn't as severe? My point is that the burden of proof is on us and not on the state - besides the state witnessing us being in possession of standard capacity mags.
All good examples are things such as self defense and insanity pleas. Affirmative defense is more common than people realize. You hit it on the head with them having proof you posses them. All they have to prove is you had a 10+ round mag because the measure was written it is a crime to posses 10+ mags. If they have that evidence and charge you, you then use affirmative defense to provide evidence you committed the act of possession lawfully.

I do not like the way they wrote it as a crime to even have mags with affirmative defense. I think that part should be challenged. The reason why is your only choice to not commit the act of possession is to dispose of the mags before the law goes into effect. They basically are forcing you to chose between committing the act of possession or lose your property. If you chose to commit the act, they have not provided a way to prove your affirmative defense.

If this measure was written like other mag bans in the past. All the burden would be on them to prove you acquired them after the implementation date. That method was not as effective on getting the sheep to rid themselves of 10+ mags.
 
Messages
1,597
Reactions
2,932
Do you have an example that isn't as severe? My point is that the burden of proof is on us and not on the state - besides the state witnessing us being in possession of standard capacity mags.
Can you provide any other law that you have to prove you innocents and the government doesn't have to prove your guilty? Acting like this law is well written or even legally enforceable is nuts. This law was not written by lawyers or politicians but zealots who put a "wish" list together, tossed it at the wall and is going to see what sticks.

20221207_140815.jpg
 
Messages
3,480
Reactions
9,559
When (if) 114 goes into effect - It will be illegal to sell 10+ mags in Oregon and TO Oregon residents by dealers and online...
Therefore - any 10+ magazines in my possession after that date would, of course - HAD to have been in my possession beforehand.

:cool:

Ezpz.
 

Upcoming Events

collectors west gun & knife show
Grants Pass, OR
Road Trip: Marysville, WA 98270 to JBLM (tacoma, WA 98433)
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top