Magazines: Proof of date purchased.

[Kruel J]

Holy smokes, all the people on here who "don't care" sure have a lot to say about it. I don't care about the WA ban, which means I don't spend my days arguing with people on forums who do. I already regret the few minutes I wasted skimming this thread.

I regret the 30 seconds it took me to read your post.

 

[PrDubi]

I regret the 30 seconds it took me to read your post.

I'll just accept your regret and won't waste 30 seconds either, your acceptance of regret was worth my 5 seconds of time.

 

[kopcicle]

Burden of proof .

 

[raftman]

Holy smokes, all the people on here who "don't care" sure have a lot to say about it. I don't care about the WA ban, which means I don't spend my days arguing with people on forums who do. I already regret the few minutes I wasted skimming this thread.

Meh, I take it as pushback against those who are too eager to be as compliant as possible. They seem like the gun-owner equivalents to the type of folk who were asking on the Next Door app if Dr. Fauci said it was ok for their kids to go trick-or-treating this past Halloween or made their relatives wait in the garage while waiting on rona rapid test results before letting them in for Thanksgiving.

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

Meh, I take it as pushback against those who are too eager to be as compliant as possible. They seem like the gun-owner equivalents to the type of folk who were asking on the Next Door app if Dr. Fauci said it was ok for their kids to go trick-or-treating this past Halloween or made their relatives wait in the garage while waiting on rona rapid test results before letting them in for Thanksgiving.

These compliant types could at the very least tag their wife's boyfriend in the thread so we could talk to the man of their house.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Hey @jayR have you been following this thread? It's a great example of the "Somebody doesn't agree with 100% of what I believe so I'm going shun them and mock them" problem I was talking about

 

[The_Crazys]

Hey @jayR have you been following this thread? It's a great example of the "Somebody doesn't agree with 100% of what I believe so I'm going shun them and mock them" problem I was talking about

Purity spirals. Purity spirals everywhere.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Purity spirals

I was today years old when I learned a new phrase!

 

[RobMa]

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Can't stand this guy reading bits of it for hype value when a person can simply read it themselves and get much better and complete info.

 

[pinne65]

I didn't read this whole thread so someone else might already have asked and gotten this answered, but wouldn't the burden of proof of a "chrime" commited be on the accuser, always?
If not, we could see the price of old newspapers sky-rocket soon.

 

[Jay Walk]

Do old newspapers disappear the day after print or something?

Anybody know where I can get a roll of film for my S7?

 

[NoThankYou]

I didn't read this whole thread so someone else might already have asked and gotten this answered, but wouldn't the burden of proof of a "chrime" commited be on the accuser, always?
If not, we could see the price of old newspapers sky-rocket soon.

The burden of proof for the crime is always on the accuser. If you are found having the >10 round magazines, they have to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you have the magazines.

If they do that (which isn't hard), you can mount an "affirmative defense" in which if you show by predominance of evidence (more likely than not) that you owned them before the ban and were only using them for and where they are permitted, you are absolved.

This is no different than self-defense cases. The state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that you shot someone. You have to show more likely than not that it was self-defense.

there are lots of interesting arguments about the constitutionality of parts of 114, but the "affirmative defense" thing is not contrary to the constitution or anything like that. It's common in U.S. law.