If you have documented/modified standard capacity magazines- how?

[Member 34319]

Honestly I'm more mad at big manufacturers putting date stamps on things.

If the military wants them, fine, include that in the mold for theirs. Take it out for civilian use mags.

Cough cough, magpul.

 

[The Heretic]

You are putting way too much thought into this. Exactly what they want.

Nah - I just like to argue.

 

[Kruel J]

Any talk of documenting magazine purchase dates or engraving mags is just giving the antis even more than they asked for.

 

[titsonritz]

OTOH - if you put something on a mag that can be traced back to you, and you get in an exchange of bullets, drop a mag or two, and then decide to leave as fast as possible without policing brass and mags, this is one more thing that can be traced to you.

If that is a concern I think they call that "murder".

 

[The Heretic]

If that is a concern I think they call that "murder".

Homicide.

Whether it is murder or self-defense is for a jury to decide and is dependent on the circumstances.

 

[titsonritz]

Homicide.

Whether it is murder or self-defense is for a jury to decide and is dependent on the circumstances.

If the concern is policing mags and brass I'd say it firmly qualifies as the latter. No legit SD shooting would picking up brass or concern of mag ID be an issue.

 

[The Heretic]

If the concern is policing mags and brass I'd say it firmly qualifies as the latter. No legit SD shooting would picking up brass or concern of mag ID be an issue.

*shrug*

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the circumstances.

Just saying that it may not be a good idea to have mags marked with something that can be traced back to you.

 

[greghaz]

*shrug*

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the circumstances.

Just saying that it may not be a good idea to have mags marked with something that can be traced back to you.

Revolvers as carry guns may have advantages...just sayin'

 

[titsonritz]

*shrug*

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the circumstances.

Just saying that it may not be a good idea to have mags marked with something that can be traced back to you.

What are you trying to hide? Yes, I shot the f'er, because the f-er needed shooting.

 

[rscanady]

The burden of proof is on the state.

Actually, according to the measure, the burden of proof is on the defendant:

"(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:"

 

[rscanady]

I heard the way the bill was written, the burden of proof is on the owner.

Here is an excerpt from the bill:

"(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:"

 

[Kruel J]

You can keep them, use them at home, use them at your range, use them hunting as long as the regs say it's ok. You can transport them to and from as well.

Bunch of nervous nellies around here.

 

[Kruel J]

I've never seen so many Pro-2A Patriots willing, ready and already have in some cases to engrave, take pictures, store semen/urine/stool samples and the like.

Christ almighty the antis pass a bill and people jump even higher than required. Why?????

 

[Xaevian]

Actually, according to the measure, the burden of proof is on the defendant:

"(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be an affirmative defense, as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that:"

It seems worse than it is. People keep bringing that up.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yet another example of how poorly written 114 is

So definition first:
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.

The affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law

OK, that seams pretty straight forward, except it says "did, in fact, break the law" and the law clearly states that we can keep them and use them for a limited number of uses if we had them before Dec 8th, 2022

So (and for the sake of this point, assuming that we did have them before that date) saying that we have an "affirmative defense" is not a valid defense because there is nothing unlawful about us having them and using such a defense would be admitting guilt to a crime not committed

Maybe what they intended was:

"(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be cause for dismissing all charges with prejudice , as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that: (a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession"


Besides, nothing that is actually in 114 negates the states responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

TL/DR
Not doing anything with my mags
If it comes to it they can fold the Affirmative Defense option 7 times and stick it where the sun don't shine

 

[rscanady]

Yet another example of how poorly written 114 is

So definition first:
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.

The affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law

OK, that seams pretty straight forward, except it says "did, in fact, break the law" and the law clearly states that we can keep them and use them for a limited number of uses if we had them before Dec 8th, 2022

So (and for the sake of this point, assuming that we did have them before that date) saying that we have an "affirmative defense" is not a valid defense because there is nothing unlawful about us having them and using such a defense would be admitting guilt to a crime not committed

Maybe what they intended was:

"(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be cause for dismissing all charges with prejudice , as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that: (a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession"


Besides, nothing that is actually in 114 negates the states responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

TL/DR
Not doing anything with my mags
If it comes to it they can fold the Affirmative Defense option 7 times and stick it where the sun don't shine

Don't disagree with any of that, but seeing as how the state of OR is already pushing bullbubblegum laws, i could see them cooking up some BS charge that would then necessitate a person to affirmative defense, and when they can't, just gives the state another reason to confiscate and infringe.

The burden of proof constitutionally belongs with the accuser not the defendanct, but i guess Constitutionality doesn't matter to Oregon, or we wouldn't be here in the first place.

 

[Xaevian]

Yet another example of how poorly written 114 is

So definition first:
An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct.

The affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law

OK, that seams pretty straight forward, except it says "did, in fact, break the law" and the law clearly states that we can keep them and use them for a limited number of uses if we had them before Dec 8th, 2022

So (and for the sake of this point, assuming that we did have them before that date) saying that we have an "affirmative defense" is not a valid defense because there is nothing unlawful about us having them and using such a defense would be admitting guilt to a crime not committed

Maybe what they intended was:

"(5) As of the effective date of this 2022 Act, it shall be cause for dismissing all charges with prejudice , as provided in ORS 166.055, to the unlawful possession, use and transfer of a large-capacity magazine in this state by any person, provided that: (a) The large-capacity magazine was owned by the person before the effective date of this 2022 Act and maintained in the person's control or possession"


Besides, nothing that is actually in 114 negates the states responsibility to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

TL/DR
Not doing anything with my mags
If it comes to it they can fold the Affirmative Defense option 7 times and stick it where the sun don't shine

Most common examples of affirmative defense: self defense, insanity, lesser of 2 evils, and entrapment. There is a theme there.

 

[slimmer13]

What are you trying to hide? Yes, I shot the f'er, because the f-er needed shooting.

I have a family member that is a bond enforcement agent. Last week he was trying to make an arrest and the guy shot at him from inside a trailer. He returned fire while retreating to cover and had to call in SWAT. He told them "I don't know why he was shooting at me but I was shooting at him because he was shooting at me".

 

[The Heretic]

What are you trying to hide?

Me personally?

Nothing.

Just saying, that it is not a wise idea to mark everything you own, especially an item that the law considers it to be verboten contraband, and especially when it might be used in a situation where you might be arrested.

Plausible deniability is a benefit of items that are difficult to link to your possession.

I see little benefit in making mags (or guns for that matter, or ammo) identifiable in a way that the government can link them back to you.

 

[rhollister71]

I've never seen so many Pro-2A Patriots willing, ready and already have in some cases to engrave, take pictures, store semen/urine/stool samples and the like.

Christ almighty the antis pass a bill and people jump even higher than required. Why?????

this right here