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

[sobo]

It doesn't.

But if there are ten mags of the same type/appearance in your possession before & after 12/8/22, then by preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), the state then has to prove they are different mags than the ones in the photo.

...and the State can go...

 

[dinky450]

Ummm...if "they" are in our garage to "check" our magazines? Is that the concern?

Because if it is, folks REALLY need to think thru things...

That's my point.

 

[Sweep1308]

Ok, i still attest to the constitution affirming that the burden is on the accuser. However, for the paranoid, take a photo of your magazines. Showing quantity, not so much identifiers. Email said picture to yourself. The ability to falsify a digital image is somewhat irrelevant in this issue. The email is time and date stamped. But, that said, i still feel this inclusion in measure 114, along with basically all of it, is a violation of civil rights granted in the us and state constitution.

 

[sobo]

i still feel this inclusion in measure 114, along with basically all of it, is a violation of civil rights granted in the us and state constitution.

You shouldn't feel that way, but rather you should believe that way, cuz it most certainly IS a violation...

 

[The Heretic]

The email is time and date stamped.

If there is one thing that is easier to spoof than EXIF data, it is email header data.

But whatever...

Like I said, people are overthinking this.

I need to stop wasting my time on this thread.

 

[ar man]

You have the mags that were bought with your gun or for your gun keep them. Who the hell can put a place marker on 10rd being standard complete bs
If a gun was bought with any more that is a standard mag any thing other is bs

 

[Sweep1308]

I'm no lawyer, but....If a person really wanted legally admissible evidence of ownership, this is what I'd do.

I'd line 'em up and take a picture or two of them, with a recent newspaper headline visible in the picture. Make three or four copies of the pictures, then mail them separately to yourself and don't open them when they arrive. If you have to 'prove' ownership, you have a postmarked letter with a dated photo inside. Take a sealed one to court and let the judge open it for himself.

When I was in the music business, we used to do the "poor man's copyright" - mailing a cassette of a song or two to yourself, and leaving it sealed if it ever became necessary to litigate who wrote the song.

I'm not going to kiss anyone's a@$ over this, but being proactive and protecting your property and your freedom seems reasonable.

Would not the postmark in and of itself be evidence? Obviously the pic was taken on or prior to that date.

 

[GWS]

The state has to prove you are in possession of the magazines. You need to prove you acquired them before deadline. On the upside, you only need to prove by Preponderance of Evidence standard, which just means "more likely than not," so it's not a high burden. Receipts aren't definitive proof that its for the magazines you were caught with, but it would likely meet PoE standard to a jury. Digital photos with time stamp, sealed mailed envelopes of photos, or notarized photos? Can't imagine how it couldn't work. This is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, just preponderance of evidence.

How about any self-defense shooting?

And yet in 22 years of magazine bans in the PRK, the only busts for magazines have been related to the aforementioned felons and DUI's. Why haven't the rabidly anti-gun California DOJ or sheriffs or police been scooping "hicap" magazines up?

And please cite a case where a legitimate self-defense shooting has led to an arrest/citation because of the magazine used? I personally have never heard of such a case.

 

[Murphy]

Anyone stop to ponder that an affirmable defense would be as simple as you being in legal possession of a firearm which shipped with regular capacity magazines? It isn't a big step to think that someone would also purchase extra magazines for that firearm and if you experienced the 94 ban, you'd most likely stock up with 3 lifetime supplies worth.

 

[Camelfilter]

Anyone stop to ponder that an affirmable defense would be as simple as you being in legal possession of a firearm which shipped with regular capacity magazines? It isn't a big step to think that someone would also purchase extra magazines for that firearm and if you experienced the 94 ban, you'd most likely stock up with 3 lifetime supplies worth.

Yup.

However, it sounds like some folks have concerns over there homes being searched. THEN using easily forged photos to prevent their magazines from being seized during said search...

 

[Sweep1308]

Oh nobody said prevent being seized. Thats standard practice. Getting them back is the trick.

 

[NoThankYou]

And yet in 22 years of magazine bans in the PRK, the only busts for magazines have been related to the aforementioned felons and DUI's. Why haven't the rabidly anti-gun California DOJ or sheriffs or police been scooping "hicap" magazines up?

California's law regarding magazine limits doesn't have an "affirmative defense" mention in it like Oregon's 114 initiative contains.

And please cite a case where a legitimate self-defense shooting has led to an arrest/citation because of the magazine used? I personally have never heard of such a case.

I don't care about California's law because I don't live in California. I care about Oregon's and how the law is going to actually be written into the books.

Personally, in a justified self-defense shooting, I think the barest of evidence of possession of a standard capacity magazine owned prior to the new law will be just fine. So taking a basic step to have it doesn't bother me. It also helps me if the law becomes more restrictive over time. And it helps in case of a civil suit.

Frankly, this stuff falls into the "should my striker pistol have a manual safety?" and "should I keep my home defense pistol locked up?" Folks need to make their own call. But I think considering the pros and cons lets folks make the choice that's right for them.

 

[Member 53328]

I've thought about it….
















And I'm still not documenting sh!t. Eat a bag of d!cks.

 

[GWS]

California's law regarding magazine limits doesn't have an "affirmative defense" mention in it like Oregon's 114 initiative contains.

I don't care about California's law because I don't live in California. I care about Oregon's and how the law is going to actually be written into the books.

Personally, in a justified self-defense shooting, I think the barest of evidence of possession of a standard capacity magazine owned prior to the new law will be just fine. So taking a basic step to have it doesn't bother me. It also helps me if the law becomes more restrictive over time. And it helps in case of a civil suit.

Frankly, this stuff falls into the "should my striker pistol have a manual safety?" and "should I keep my home defense pistol locked up?" Folks need to make their own call. But I think considering the pros and cons lets folks make the choice that's right for them.

You should care about California's laws because what's happening there will directly affect this law and Washington's as well. And California was not the only place that has magazine restrictions NY, NJ, CT and CO all have them and still no major sweeps or busts of anyone who wasn't already breaking the law in some other way and even then the magazines aren't prosecuted
As I've said, the law(s) are unenforceable

 

[dancinghippos]

Suppose you photograph with a smart phone. In the background a Windows 11 (or 10?) laptop with the news feed from the left side turned on. In a web browser, have a news channel running. Each photo of each group of magazines shows the news channel a little later. Preponderance of evidence, right? Then send the photos to a photo printing place. Their printed photos have dates on the back. If you want to be extra sure, get two copies of each, then mail a packet of one of the sets to yourself. Postmark shows when mailed. Don't open. Put in safe deposit box.

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Suppose you photograph with a smart phone. In the background a Windows 11 (or 10?) laptop with the news feed from the left side turned on. Then send the photos to a photo printing place. Their printed photos have dates on the back. If you want to be extra sure, get two copies of each, then mail a packet of one of the sets to yourself. Postmark shows when mailed. Don't open. Put in safe deposit box.

And how do you prove that the magazine(s) in question by the law at the time, are in fact the ones in the photo?

 

[dancinghippos]

And how do you prove that the magazine(s) in question by the law at the time, are in fact the ones in the photo?

If they want to "get you" they will find a way. Am not attorney, so don't rely on my idea as the last word. Some of the old magazines look it and are scratched in the image. Newer mags bought have receipts that will be in the photos. Someone else had an idea of an engraver and serial numbers.

 

[arakboss]

Most of my mags are dreamers so I assume they are covered under DACA

 

[Nutty4Guns]

Most of my mags are dreamers so I assume they are covered under DACA

All of my mags are inanimate objects and are covered under DGAF

 

[kmk1012]

I wonder if there will be a market to "rent out" a receipt showing purchases prior to 12/8. You know, if someone were to be taking a road trip and happen to bring back exactly what on the dates receipt?