Getting ready for the ban

[RX-79G]

Yes, you do, whether you are aware of it or not. Common carriers operate under a set of rules known as the Contract of Carriage. One of the sections in the Contract of Carriage states quite clearly that you agree to be screened/searched prior to boarding, including your baggage. So, yeah, kinda different than a traffic stop and a request by LEO to search one's vehicle, which one can legally and lawfully refuse. In your example above, you did indeed consent to a search when you bought your ticket and showed up at the airport, according to the language in the Contract of Carriage.

I'll go with making the State prove their case, which they will never be able to do, because they'll be in the position of attempting to prove a negative. It's a (Constitutional) principle thing rather than a potential loss of equipment thing for me. I have hundreds upon hundreds of what the 2A-antis frighteningly refer to as "high-capacity" magazines, so making an example of the asshats in Olympia in court would be joyous and just icing on the cake to me.

Jeez, you seem smart, yet you don't seem to understand much:

1. You take an airplane trip and take some mags with you. When you return, you bring your mags back. Since your stuff will be searched (rather than might be), it would be really a smart move to have some sort of evidence that your return trip is not an importation.

I didn't say anything about whether the search is agreed to or not, so I don't know why you responded like you have to learn me up about air travel regulation. I'm a commercial pilot - of course you are agreeing to be searched. And when you are, they will find magazines that might be contraband. So back to my suggestion of having images in your email.


2. The state has nothing to do with the example I gave you. If a low level state employee (cop) makes an error by taking and then losing your mags, it is no different than if they take and lose a Xmas card your grandma sent you - it is not going to be directly replaceable. The state can do no better than compensate you for the value of the property.

I don't know what you think that situation could turn into in court. The judge will say "Was the citizen compensated? Case dismissed." There's no standing to make any more of it than that, and no (non-idiot) lawyer is going to bother to waste the court's time with a lost property case that can't be articulated as a rights violation.

 

[GWS]

Jeez, you seem smart, yet you don't seem to understand much:



I don't know what you think that situation could turn into in court. The judge will say "Was the citizen compensated? Case dismissed." There's no standing to make any more of it than that, and no (non-idiot) lawyer is going to bother to waste the court's time with a lost property case that can't be articulated as a rights violation.

So , post 6/22, what is compensation for what would be an irreplaceable object?

 

[RX-79G]

So , post 6/22, what is compensation for what would be an irreplaceable object?

Good question. In a state where an object cannot be sold - possibly zero as replacement cost. But a "fair" price (that would cause a judge to say you have no standing), would be either purchase price or average cost in the rest of the US. The jurisdiction that made the mistake may even give you $40 for your $20 mag.

This kind of thing is no different than what happens when they "buy" your house under eminent domain or when your property is damaged by a city vehicle. No matter how unjust any of it seems to be, the judicial system sees it as a property issue that would be compensated monetarily. The government isn't going to find you a Ming vase, Indian motorcycle or banned mag if they lose yours - they will just pay you off.

 

[Flopsweat]

Jeez, you seem smart, yet you don't seem to understand much:

Here's something simple to understand: Be nice.

 

[CountryGent]

Here's hoping SCOTUS takes up Duncan v. Bonta and these BS magazine capacity laws are stuck down once and for all.

 

[kmk1012]

Here's hoping SCOTUS takes up Duncan v. Bonta and these BS magazine capacity laws are stuck down once and for all.

I'm hoping for the same thing!

 

[Flopsweat]

Here's hoping SCOTUS takes up Duncan v. Bonta and these BS magazine capacity laws are stuck down once and for all.

I'm hoping for the same thing!

Duncan v. Bonta (formerly Duncan v. Becerra):

CRPA Files Petition For Supreme Court Review In Its Challenge To California's Ban On Standard Capacity Magazines - CRPA

On February 28, 2022, CRPA filed its much-anticipated petition for certiorari to the United States...

crpa.org

 

[sobo]

Jeez, you seem smart, yet you don't seem to understand much:

1. You take an airplane trip and take some mags with you. When you return, you bring your mags back. Since your stuff will be searched (rather than might be), it would be really a smart move to have some sort of evidence that your return trip is not an importation.

I didn't say anything about whether the search is agreed to or not, so I don't know why you responded like you have to learn me up about air travel regulation. I'm a commercial pilot - of course you are agreeing to be searched. And when you are, they will find magazines that might be contraband. So back to my suggestion of having images in your email.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I understood your earlier response of "Airplanes and TSA. You don't have to submit to a search." as you providing an example of where one does not expressly consent to a search, yet gets searched anyway. My rebuttal to that was that under the Contract of Carriage, one actually does expressly consent to a search, which is different than an LEO requesting to search my vehicle and me refusing said search, which I am allowed to do. Apparently, I misread your meaning, and I trust the above will be sufficient explanation for you as to why I responded in the manner in which I did. And I'm not trying to "learn you up" about air travel regs, despite what you do for a living (which is superfluous information anyway).

2. The state has nothing to do with the example I gave you. If a low level state employee (cop) makes an error by taking and then losing your mags, it is no different than if they take and lose a Xmas card your grandma sent you - it is not going to be directly replaceable. The state can do no better than compensate you for the value of the property.

You fail to recognize that I am not concerned with replacement, either in-kind or monetary. As I stated quite clearly earlier, it's a principle thing with me. I have hundreds upon hundreds of magazines, so I'm not worried about replacement.

I don't know what you think that situation could turn into in court. The judge will say "Was the citizen compensated? Case dismissed." There's no standing to make any more of it than that, and no (non-idiot) lawyer is going to bother to waste the court's time with a lost property case that can't be articulated as a rights violation.

It's evident that you do not seem to grasp how our justice system works. This is not at all about "lost property" and compensation therefor. The LEO will arrest me, which will result in me being charged with a gross misdemeanor for violating the importation element of this law. I would be summoned to appear in court to answer the charge, the maximum punishment for which is 364 days in county jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000. Clearly, I and my counsel would vigorously defend against that. So, yeah, I would have my day in court to challenge this law, that day arising out of the confiscation of my legally-owned property. And that challenge would not be based upon me seeking any compensation/restitution, but rather upon the basic unconstitutionality of the law. That's why I say my position is principle-based and not compensation-based (the concept to which you seem to keep returning). Many people go to court to challenge the unconstitutionality of unjust laws. That's the whole point behind court cases like Duncan v. Bonta. I'm surprised you don't understand that.

 

[RX-79G]

The LEO will arrest me, which will result in me being charged with a gross misdemeanor for violating the importation element of this law.

If you say that they were already yours and you have a WA address, I rather doubt the cop will arrest you, but just take the offending item and write up a summons to appear. The officer would be acting out of caution because if he let you go with the mags and they turned out to be illegal, he would have lost control of them. You're not a danger to anyone without them, like a drunk driver or a prior felon is.

This is the pattern with public forfeiture laws when police suspect you're transporting elicit cash.

So I doubt someone who is not belligerent, has no warrants and is acting like they have nothing to hide would be arrested and immediately charged. Confiscated and investigated - yes.

 

[RX-79G]

It's evident that you do not seem to grasp how our justice system works.

It is this sort of post that led me to be impolite to you in the first place. Our difference of opinion about how police are going to enforce a new law is just that - opinion. So you should consider dropping the Alan Dershowitz act.

 

[sobo]

If you say that they were already yours and you have a WA address, I rather doubt the cop will arrest you, but just take the offending item and write up a summons to appear. The officer would be acting out of caution because if he let you go with the mags and they turned out to be illegal, he would have lost control of them. You're not a danger to anyone without them, like a drunk driver or a prior felon is.

See, this is where the sticking point in this new law comes, and why I would be up for the challenge. If the mags are in my possession prior to the effective date, then by the new law, they are mine, with no need to provide proof of that (the "proof" clause was removed from the bill). It is therefore inappropriate for the LEO to confiscate them, as that would be an illegal seizure of a lawfully and legally possessed item. If the LEO were to confiscate them, for whatever reason, this just shows why this law must be challenged. It is just plain wrong for the LEO to seize that lawfully owned property, whatever "abundance of caution" he/she may want to exercise.

This is the pattern with public forfeiture laws when police suspect you're transporting elicit cash.

Typically, those civil asset forfeitures occur, more often than not, with those with a prior record.

So I doubt someone who is not belligerent, has no warrants and is acting like they have nothing to hide would be arrested and immediately charged.

Well, I can agree with you on that point.

Confiscated and investigated - yes.

But on this one, I still don't.

 

[sobo]

It is this sort of post that led me to be impolite to you in the first place. Our difference of opinion about how police are going to enforce a new law is just that - opinion. So you should consider dropping the Alan Dershowitz act.

And what you posted before that (captured below, emphasis mine) is why I became impolite with you. Sounded kinda snarky to me...

Jeez, you seem smart, yet you don't seem to understand much:

In closing, while I find your Alan Dershowitz comment amusing (if not outright flattering), if you knew what I do for a living, you would realize it's really not an act...

 

[RX-79G]

See, this is where the sticking point in this new law comes, and why I would be up for the challenge. If the mags are in my possession prior to the effective date, then by the new law, they are mine, with no need to provide proof of that (the "proof" clause was removed from the bill). It is therefore inappropriate for the LEO to confiscate them, as that would be an illegal seizure (not a forfeiture) of a lawfully and legally possessed item. If the LEO were to confiscate them, for whatever reason, this just shows why this law must be challenged. It is just plain wrong for the LEO to seize that lawfully owned property, whatever "abundance of caution" he/she may want to exercise.

Typically, those civil asset forfeitures occur, more often than not, with those with a prior record.

Well, I can agree with you on that point.

But on this one, I still don't.

What challenge? You agree that you are unlikely to be immediately arrested and charged. What makes you think that you have something to go to court about if you receive your property (or compensation) back after the police temporarily hold it? That's like saying you can sue the police for briefly detaining you or taking some of your property as evidence during an investigation. This isn't any different.


And just to be 100% clear, because your responses to me have read as if I am some sort of apologist for this law, I'm totally against it. ALL of my posts on this matter have been about what happens when errors are made at the lowest LE level and how to better deal with that situation. It is a similar situation to living in a state where some marijuana is illegal and the rest is not.

 

[sobo]

What challenge? You agree that you are unlikely to be immediately arrested and charged.

This makes no sense to me... I don't believe I ever said or implied that. What I did say was that I would not consent to a search of my vehicle by the LEO.

The scenario you presented was that the LEO would confiscate my mags to prevent their importation into WA. In order for the LEO to confiscate my property, the LEO would have to search my vehicle, an undertaking to which I would expressly object. Since I refuse to give permission for a search, the LEO cannot legally search my vehicle absent a search warrant. So, to get the warrant, the LEO would then have to establish probable cause, request and execute a search warrant, etc., all of which would more than likely require me to be detained against my will for some time (at a minimum) or arrested (the other end of that spectrum, say if I were to become belligerent). I don't believe I said anything that implied I agreed it would be unlikely for me to be immediately arrested. This portion of your reply seems like a red herring.

What makes you think that you have something to go to court about if you receive your property (or compensation) back after the police temporarily hold it? That's like saying you can sue the police for briefly detaining you or taking some of your property as evidence during an investigation. This isn't any different.

Without going back and reviewing every one of your previous posts, it is my recollection that you were not discussing temporary holds in your prior posts. You consistently referred to lost, destroyed, or permanently retained/confiscated materials. So, this portion of your post makes no sense to me either, although I would concur I would have no case with which to go to court if all of my confiscated materials were returned to me intact. That seems rather obvious...

And just to be 100% clear, because your responses to me have read as if I am some sort of apologist for this law, I'm totally against it. ALL of my posts on this matter have been about what happens when errors are made at the lowest LE level and how to better deal with that situation. It is a similar situation to living in a state where some marijuana is illegal and the rest is not.

I never assumed that you were in favor of this law. In fact, I rather quickly surmised that you're against it, as am I, and you were just taking the role of Devil's Advocate.

 

[RX-79G]

Now I'm getting confused... I don't believe I ever said that.

So I doubt someone who is not belligerent, has no warrants and is acting like they have nothing to hide would be arrested and immediately charged.

To which you replied:

Well, I can agree with you on that point.

So, LEO would then have to establish probable cause, request and execute a search warrant, etc. All of that would more than likely require me to be detained against my will (at a minimum)

We had already discussed other avenues aside from having your car searched after seeking permission, like aircraft travel. Add to that an accident, probable cause search for an unrelated matter or being reported upon by a third party. None of which would directly result in a bad act due to the mag law.

it is my recollection that you were not discussing temporary holds in your prior posts. You were consistently referring to lost, destroyed, or permanently retained/confiscated materials. So, this portion of your post makes no sense to me now, although I would concur I would have no case with which to go to court if my materials were returned to me intact. That's rather obvious...

I have always discussed what happens when a cop takes your mags as a result of a chance encounter. As you well know, police officers are allowed to make field decisions that are impermanent. Their decisions are subject to investigation and review, so an officer may temporarily confiscate your magazines. They are also human, and may subsequently damage or lose them. None of which is an official action of the state, and the state will attempt to make you whole if your property was damaged, lost or destroyed due to a mistake. Making you whole can be monetary if your property no longer exists. And they will likely do that without going to court - you just need to file a claim.

So this is not permanent because the state had no intent of permanently depriving you of your property and will compensate you if the property is lost.

And if they do return the property or compensate you for the mistakes of employees, you don't have standing to sue the state. The court won't see the state as being at fault, and the employees have immunity. The court has to actually allow the lawsuit.

I never assumed that you were in favor of this law. In fact, I rather quickly surmised that you're against it, as am I, and you were just taking the role of Devil's Advocate.

But I'm not. I have repeatedly described a scenario where suspicion and accident deprives you of your property without the state directly playing a role. And that scenario could be avoided by keeping certain information accessible.

You have repeatedly read into that simple idea to describe oddball situations that end up with your in front of the supreme court.

 

[sobo]

To which you replied:


We had already discussed other avenues aside from having your car searched after seeking permission, like aircraft travel. Add to that an accident, probable cause search for an unrelated matter or being reported upon by a third party. None of which would directly result in a bad act due to the mag law.




I have always discussed what happens when a cop takes your mags as a result of a chance encounter. As you well know, police officers are allowed to make field decisions that are impermanent. Their decisions are subject to investigation and review, so an officer may temporarily confiscate your magazines. They are also human, and may subsequently damage or lose them. None of which is an official action of the state, and the state will attempt to make you whole if your property was damaged, lost or destroyed due to a mistake. Making you whole can be monetary if your property no longer exists. And they will likely do that without going to court - you just need to file a claim.

So this is not permanent because the state had no intent of permanently depriving you of your property and will compensate you if the property is lost.

And if they do return the property or compensate you for the mistakes of employees, you don't have standing to sue the state. The court won't see the state as being at fault, and the employees have immunity. The court has to actually allow the lawsuit.

But I'm not. I have repeatedly described a scenario where suspicion and accident deprives you of your property without the state directly playing a role. And that scenario could be avoided by keeping certain information accessible.

You have repeatedly read into that simple idea to describe oddball situations that end up with your in front of the supreme court.

OK, you win. But I'm still not going to drive around with photos, receipts, affidavits, or any of the other crazy shhit that others in this thread have suggested in order to prove something that, by law, I don't need to prove. The burden of proof is upon the State, and not me, which is all I've been trying to get across for the past umnpteen posts...

 

[GWS]

Well, fellas. I lived under the California mag ban for 18 years before pulling stumps for the PNW and in all that time I know of no honest citizen getting pulled over and searched for illegal magazines.. Any busts that occurred involving magazines were always part of some larger issue such as a DUI or known felon getting pulled over and searched. There were no magazine checkpoints on the road or neighborhood sweeps--EVER! I see no reason to think it will be any different here.
So...Don't be an idiot and the cops won't even look at you.

Everyone here is overthinking themselves into a tizzy. Just go about your normal daily life and the police etc. will be content to ignore this magazine ban as much as I will. The trick to this is the same as most of life--Don't be an bubblegum and you'll be fine.

Peace

 

[RX-79G]

OK, you win. But I'm still not going to drive around with photos, receipts, affidavits, or any of the other crazy shhit that others in this thread have suggested in order to prove something that, by law, I don't need to prove. The burden of proof is upon the State, and not me, which is all I've been trying to get across for the past umnpteen posts...

Some inexperienced patrolman is not "the state", as I have been trying to explain to you. Having access to an email that will dissuade the officer that your mags are illegal is a simple step you can take to prevent a loss that is entirely based on that one officer's understanding of the situation. The state has nothing to do with that situation.



And to be specific for anyone (else) interested in taking ten minutes to do this: Take whatever photos of the mags, your home with the mags, receipts or whatever you think might help and email them to yourself. Then put those emails in a folder so they are quick and easy to find. If questioned, you can open the email in 5 seconds and show the officer images on your smartphone. Just the fact that you have anything to show would likely make the cop uninterested in having to write up the incident and file an evidence report. This is not to prevent you from going to prison, it is just there to stop the suspicion of wrongdoing before it gets any steam.

Anyone carrying around prescription opioids might consider a similar move. When I travel overseas I carry electronic copies of my passports and IDs this way.

 

[sobo]

Some inexperienced patrolman is not "the state", as I have been trying to explain to you. Having access to an email that will dissuade the officer that your mags are illegal is a simple step you can take to prevent a loss that is entirely based on that one officer's understanding of the situation. The state has nothing to do with that situation.

Incorrect. An actor employed, at any level, by a state represents that state, and by/through that representation, is the state. So, "some inexperienced patrolman" is, in fact, "the state."
And I have already said, "You win." Why belabor this further?

Anyone carrying around prescription opioids might consider a similar move.

I carry Rx opioids, yet I don't see the need for any email or whatever as being necessary. The name on my WDL will match the name on the pill bottle label.

When I travel overseas I carry electronic copies of my passports and IDs this way.

This, I actually do, too.

 

[mhayd93]

Some inexperienced patrolman is not "the state", as I have been trying to explain to you. Having access to an email that will dissuade the officer that your mags are illegal is a simple step you can take to prevent a loss that is entirely based on that one officer's understanding of the situation. The state has nothing to do with that situation.



And to be specific for anyone (else) interested in taking ten minutes to do this: Take whatever photos of the mags, your home with the mags, receipts or whatever you think might help and email them to yourself. Then put those emails in a folder so they are quick and easy to find. If questioned, you can open the email in 5 seconds and show the officer images on your smartphone. Just the fact that you have anything to show would likely make the cop uninterested in having to write up the incident and file an evidence report. This is not to prevent you from going to prison, it is just there to stop the suspicion of wrongdoing before it gets any steam.

Anyone carrying around prescription opioids might consider a similar move. When I travel overseas I carry electronic copies of my passports and IDs this way.

If your posts in this thread were a shape, it would be a circle!