Is WA 594 on hold?(legally)

[IronMonster]

United States v. Olofson was charged in federal court for federal charges using federal definition.
the only thing I can find on Krause is him having a pop can bomb. http://www.carrollconews.com/story/1685955.html

See this is why we ask people who talk big to back their talk with verifiable facts. any other "personal" knowledge?

Of course they are federal cases, there are no I594 cases to even talk about. I happen to know Mark personally. He did two years on the gun charges. And has been out now for several years. His life was wrecked because of over zelious green federal agents with a bone to pick. When they realized he was innocent of the charges he was picked up for they dug until they found something they could make stick so they didn't have to admit they made a mistake. He did the time for a couple of guns that had not been in his possession for close to a decade that the Feds said could be "easily converted" to full auto.

I did not even imply they pertained to i594, simply that in both cases it was a definition that screwed them. What they did and had should have been legal by definition, they went to jail anyway.

And how am I "talking big"? I am simply trying to get people to look at this from a reasonable perspective. I have no dog in the fight and I personally could care less what you choose to do. I don't agree with I594 nor am I saying you should comply with it. I am simply making an argument that your legal approach is on shaky ground. If you found yourself in court saying "yeah, but the RCW says this" even if your right, the intent of the law and the federal definition will be the prosecution's means to sway the jury. All the state has to do is convince the jury you purposely tried to circumvent the law, which will be pretty easy because that is exactly what you did.

Honastly the chances of the cops hassling you if your a up and up guy are pretty slim. But there are people who get royally screwed by the legal system. What your proposing to me sounds like it would have about a zero percent chance of wining if it made it to court. I could be wrong. I am not a legal expert. If you try it and get caught it will be a interesting case to follow.

 

[godspyro]

I asked

I would like you to show me one single case where a prosecutor even attempted to press criminal charges when the definition they are basing those charges off of is counter to the definition in the RCW that they are charging the defendant with violating.

To which you stated you knew of 2 cases, I wrongly assumed your statement was a reply to my challange.

I agree that if the feds want to get you they and find some charge that will stick and that is one of my greatest concerns with this law specifically, I know of no other law that holds no penalty unless you know about the law, but we have it in i594.
I see so many people that say to just ignore the law and hope that you will be the 99% that are ignored, I think that is a dangerous way to think because that is the reason we have let so many bad laws stand. If the LEO had no choice but to enforce every law they saw broken then the people would rightfully revolt and 90% of laws would be repelled the first year.

Most laws at this point are nothing but an easy way of getting a conviction when there is not proof of someone breaking a legitimate law.

The law shouldn't be "fixed" but should be repealed.

 

[bakersman345]

That's the thing lately, to "fix" a law not just out and out repeal. This, Obamacare and so many others.
Why do these people think they have to make and fix new laws to do there job right? They should go through and remove some laws, but that would be bad for "progress" I'm fed up with it all.
I think ill start a non profit devoted to making Politian's do absolutely nothing.