Magazines: Proof of date purchased.

[EHJ]

How does a photograph prove anything? Without serial numbers the mags are just plastic and metal bits. A picture of them isn't going to prove ownership. It just shows that SOME mags were owned prior to the BS.

I'm not wasting one second photographing anything. It's just mental masturbation.

Preponderance of Evidence.
It's all you would need.

Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases

Affirmative defenses differ from state to state, as well as the burden of proof for the defendant in proving an affirmative defense also differs.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

 

[Xaevian]

We need a few more threads about this!

 

[EHJ]

We need a few more threads about this!

I miss Montana.

 

[Kruel J]

I miss Idaho. Hell I miss Colorado right about now and that's not saying much.

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

All this worry about the charges involving magazines. Add on charges for the mags is the last thing I'd be worried about if it came down to that lol, time to try and make the national news

 

[nammac]

Don't worry about magazines, just pack an eight round .357 snubbie cut for moon clips, problem solved…

 

[nehalemguy]

I typed up a list of all my 10+ mags and a statement that I owned them prior to 114. Then had it notarized. So I at least have some record just in case.

Did your notary or third-party witness verify your count and sign an affidavit to that fact? No?

No offense, but that is how worthless these lists and photos are.

-E-

 

[Heyjoe]

Let me know where I can send these knee pads to make your chains more comfortable.

 

[GWS]

I'm curious
Who do you folks think is coming to kick in your doors?

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

I'm curious
Who do you folks think is coming to kick in your doors?

Alphabet Soup stacks.

 

[GWS]

Alphabet Soup stacks.


View attachment 1328018

What alphabets? This is a state law, not federal
Does OSP have the manpower for sweeps? PPB?
Do you envision police vans pulling into neighborhoods for midnight razzias?

Folks need to take a breath here. Research every state that has magazine restrictions and and find out just how few "magazine busts" there have been. Where magazines were the crime. You're going to find the number is somewhere around zero. At worst these are enhancements to whatever serious crime(s) you have committed and if you've done something like that, your magazines are the least of your worries
Go about your lives. Don't be stupid and you'll all be fine

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

What alphabets? This is a state law, not federal
Does OSP have the manpower for sweeps? PPB?
Do you envision police vans pulling into neighborhoods for midnight razzias?

Folks need to take a breath here. Research every state that has magazine restrictions and and find out just how few "magazine busts" there have been. Where magazines were the crime. You're going to find the number is somewhere around zero. At worst these are enhancements to whatever serious crime(s) you have committed and if you've done something like that, your magazines are the least of your worries
Go about your lives. Don't be stupid and you'll all be fine

It's not the magazines that I would be worried about, it's the other creative interpretations of the NFA that could be potentially. Worthy of tannerite decoy dogs anyway.

If you aren't ignoring the NFA are you even having a good time?

 

[slyfox]

I'm curious
Who do you folks think is coming to kick in your doors?

no one but if you use them to defend yourself or get stopped in traffic stop and they see them sitting on back seat, etc etc. there's lots of normal every day stuff that could cause you to encounter police and risk them seeing them.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Most likely scenario I envision is if you are target practicing, OSP rolls up on you and he happens to be a total a$$hole. If he wanted to he could cite you. Pricks like "the hatchet" I guarantee would cite you.

 

[slyfox]

Most likely scenario I envision is if you are target practicing, OSP rolls up on you and he happens to be a total a$$hole. If he wanted to he could cite you. Pricks like "the hatchet" I guarantee would cite you.

oh they just really want to add to their arrest records, or they angry that day. just just want something to nail you. broken tail light anyone. even if just 1/10 cops is bad that's not great odds. mean we carry guns cause 1 out of 1000 or so people are crazy or criminal. I dont want to be the test case.

 

[WeaponizedMRE]

such a terrible attitude to have for people with such soft armor

 

[GWS]

Most likely scenario I envision is if you are target practicing, OSP rolls up on you and he happens to be a total a$$hole. If he wanted to he could cite you. Pricks like "the hatchet" I guarantee would cite you.

If you know a cop with a hard-on patrolling an area, find another place to shoot. If you're not willing to do that then take your chances

no one but if you use them to defend yourself or get stopped in traffic stop and they see them sitting on back seat, etc etc. there's lots of normal every day stuff that could cause you to encounter police and risk them seeing them.

If you're defending your life, WGAF about the magazines? Do what it takes to get through the crisis.
As to leaving your magazines on the seat while getting busted for whatever. please refer back to my comment "Don't be stupid." i.e. Don't leave your bubblegum where people can see it/steal it. A paper bag is 8 cents if you can't afford a range bag

What next? What if magazine-eating space aliens invade?

 

[nehalemguy]

Possession of 10+ mags is not illegal.
Nowhere in this 114 mess says that.
I repeat - Possession of 10+mags is NOT illegal nor a crime.

There are 3 instances that are crimes - that involve 10+ mags...

Transfer of said mags - into the state and/or to another person.
Use on public property.
Improperly stored mags when traveling to and from private properties.

Please show me something different and I'll shut up.

Ok, I'll pick at part of your statement regarding use on public lands or property.

The measure reads:

Section 11 (5) (C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law; or

People read section (C) and jump to the conclusion that hunting is the only permissible use of a standard capacity magazine on public lands, but that is not what it says. "Hunting" is used only as an example. The key wording is "recreational activities"........plural. Target shooting is a recreational activity. Fishing is a recreational activity. Hiking is a recreational activity.

I didn't write the language to this stupid measure, but I can certainly read it in plain English and that is what it says. I'll wait to see what the State Legislature drafts as a final rule, but for now I'm carrying on as usual.

-E-

 

[BWH]

Twice, 2 times, 2x, two, Dos....Oregon has passed or initiated a "bad to talk on cell phone while driving" law. It is not swept, not enforced, folks are not scared of it.
It is at times added to other infractions as an add on for larger fine/penalty. Police really are not looking for this infraction. What makes this mag cap thing any different?
...just sayin'.

 

[EHJ]

Ok, I'll pick at part of your statement regarding use on public lands or property.

The measure reads:

Section 11 (5) (C) While engaging in the legal use of the large-capacity magazine, at a public or private shooting range or shooting gallery or for recreational activities such as hunting, to the extent permitted under state law; or

People read section (C) and jump to the conclusion that hunting is the only permissible use of a standard capacity magazine on public lands, but that is not what it says. "Hunting" is used only as an example. The key wording is "recreational activities"........plural. Target shooting is a recreational activity. Fishing is a recreational activity. Hiking is a recreational activity.

I didn't write the language to this stupid measure, but I can certainly read it in plain English and that is what it says. I'll wait to see what the State Legislature drafts as a final rule, but for now I'm carrying on as usual.

-E-

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying there's an illegality to using 10+mags in that instance above - not at all - and that's not my contention.
In fact that little detail actually supports my premise - 10+mags are NOT illegal to possess.
I'm just staying away from that entire gobbletygook of word play about hunting vs recreational for right now. That one's a mess all by itself.

I'm merely pointing out that there are a few listed limitations as to where and how 10+mags are, 'illegal' in their use, just not "illegal" to possess.

It's like saying, "It's illegal to drive a car without a license - unless you have a license to drive a car." And then to claim that having a license to drive a car then becomes an affirmative defense to not having a license if you get caught driving...