Magazines: Proof of date purchased.

[MTpockets]

If these questions are asked often enough, someone will implement a process...

...and, most probably, an unwanted process.

 

[Member 53328]

If these questions are asked often enough, someone will implement a process...

...and, most probably, an unwanted process.

I'll pass.

 

[The Heretic]

OK then, taking the above into consideration, consider this. Since an image could only be of value as supporting evidence, not proof, what does that leave us with ?

It is evidence - once it is presented in "Affirmative Defense", the burden of proof then shifts to the state. If you take a photo and it has EXIF data in it indicating the date taken was before the ban went into effect, that should be adequate.

Like I said, I really doubt this will become an issue, especially if you have any evidence at all.

 

[156256Hunter]

I assume if the mag capacity ban doesn't get struck down relatively soon after 114 enactment, and someone gets cited or whatever for having one over the "legal limit", when they raise the affirmative defense, they have to of course support it with evidence.

And if they took photos with their phone, and/or stored any other photos on their computers or tablets instead of (multiple) thumb drives or external storage devices, then I assume the prosecutor could ask to do a forensic deep dive on their phone and other devices to, for example, determine the authenticity of the photos, and see if there are other photos related to things that don't align with 114 requirements. I know that requires a search warrant, but still, it's a slippery slope.

 

[The Heretic]

"Sir your photo evidence is also the first picture in Google search when you search magazine date code!"

Me, "My picture is on Google?"

Actually, it may indeed show up on google if you ever share it online.

You can take the pics and upload them to Google photos, and they will be dated there too.

But like I said, I believe people are over thinking this.

 

[The Heretic]

I assume if the mag capacity ban doesn't get struck down relatively soon after 114 enactment, and someone gets cited or whatever for having one over the "legal limit", when they raise the affirmative defense, they have to of course support it with evidence.

Who has been cited in WA state?

I haven't heard of anybody and it has been a while.

 

[PiratePast40]

Instead of running around in circles marking magazines, taking pictures, and bending the knee to comply, how about doing something worthwhile?

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/i-dare-you-to-take-action-against-114.431995/#post-3429388

We need to be getting flyers in every gun store, pawn shop, feed store, auto parts store or anywhere else you can think of. I've attached a flyer that needs to be on the counter at every gun store. Call, email, visit. Do anything you can think of to get people riled up to DO SOMETHING. Don't sit around and cry about legality or taking pictures of your magazines. Get off your asses and get out there. Call the corporate stores like Sportsman's, Bi-Mart, Cascade, and Coastal and ask them to contribute to any organization they like that will be working on legal action.

During the run up to the election, there weren't that many people that actually did anything. Not a single member here attended the rally at the capitol or attended any of the weekly meetings. You can sit around and be a sad sack or you can be part of the solution. I don't care if you make up our own flyers, put out donation cans at stores, call everyone you know, or do something else to help. JUST DO SOMETHING.

I'm scheduled to speak at the rally at the capitol tomorrow as are others. Kevin Starrett of OFF is scheduled and Jeff Kropf from KSLM says he'll be there. If I ask for a show of hands from NWFA members will I be embarrassed? Rally starts at noon.

 

[deadeye]

It's obviously written with the concept that we are all criminals and must be treated as such. That's how they think of us and is what we're up against. They are pre-judging all gun owners and throwing us into the basket of deplorables. Until everyone gets that into their heads, we won't have a cohesive group to fight this.

DING>>>>>DING>>>>>>DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

 

[156256Hunter]

Who has been cited in WA state?

I haven't heard of anybody and it has been a while.

Not quite my point.

 

[deadeye]

Take your mags to a local engraver and get them engraved with either a SN you create (maybe match it to their respective firearms and add another number at the end if you have multiple mags for it) or a symbol of your choice. Get a receipt that has date and description of work done.
Keep a copy of the receipt with the gun/mags and another in your safe. Kind of like NFA items.

Well I know an engraver and........

 

[Jay Walk]

It is evidence - once it is presented in "Affirmative Defense", the burden of proof then shifts to the state. If you take a photo and it has EXIF data in it indicating the date taken was before the ban went into effect, that should be adequate.

Like I said, I really doubt this will become an issue, especially if you have any evidence at all.

Proof of when you took a picture maybe.
Not proof the mags in the pic are the mags you currently have.

Buddy can import some mags from Idaho and use your picture, proving he has a picture with a date attached to it.

 

[ORN197]

The last thing I'm going to do is pre-serialize and pre-register my stuff to save the state a step later on... because if you mark your mags and take photos of them, that's essentially what you're doing. Just sayin'...

 

[The Heretic]

Proof of when you took a picture maybe.
Not proof the mags in the pic are the mags you currently have.

Buddy can import some mags from Idaho and use your picture, proving he has a picture with a date attached to it.

Once you have the evidence, the state then has to prove the mags in the photo are not yours, that the photo was taken after the ban date, etc.

As I said, that is the way affirmative defense works; once you provide plausible evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the state; i.e., the state has to prove that the evidence is false. They can come up with theories, but theories are not evidence, much less proof.

I am not a lawyer - talk to one if you want legal advice on this matter.

Personally, I am not taking any photos:

1) I have receipts for many of my mags showing they were purchased and delivered before the ban.

2) I strongly doubt anybody is going to come knocking on my door wanting my mags - for the time being.

3) I am currently unaware of anybody being charged with mag possession in WA state, which has a similar "ban".

4) Besides my larger mags, I have 10 rd mags for my defensive handguns and can get more after the ban goes into effect. Should I carry the guns loaded, off my private property, it will be with 10 rd mags. If you were to ask one of the gun control advocates what the intention of this part of 114 is, they would probably say it is to reduce the incidence of people "using high capacity mags to shoot other people".

 

[The Heretic]

If we ever see somebody charged with possession of >10rd mags in Oregon or WA, it will be where the mags have a manufacture date (of some sort) marked on them after the "ban" goes into effect. I really doubt that the state is going to try to go after anybody who has >10rd mags that have no date markings on them.

Besides the stated goal, assuming the law isn't struck down in court, the goal of the gov/et. al., is to stop the legal flow of >10rd mags into the state.

After that, and assuming they win any court battles, they will go for BGCs for ammo, active formal registration of "assault weapons", a gov approved whitelist of guns that can be sold/purchased, and so on. Once they have these and other restrictions (as much as possible), they will go for confiscation of "assault weapons" and so on - first from "undesirables", then the public in general.

That is the pattern they have used elsewhere.

 

[zomie]

Once you have the evidence, the state then has to prove the mags in the photo are not yours, that the photo was taken after the ban date, etc.

As I said, that is the way affirmative defense works; once you provide plausible evidence, the burden of proof then shifts to the state; i.e., the state has to prove that the evidence is false. They can come up with theories, but theories are not evidence, much less proof.

I am not a lawyer - talk to one if you want legal advice on this matter.

Personally, I am not taking any photos:

1) I have receipts for many of my mags showing they were purchased and delivered before the ban.

2) I strongly doubt anybody is going to come knocking on my door wanting my mags - for the time being.

3) I am currently unaware of anybody being charged with mag possession in WA state, which has a similar "ban".

4) Besides my larger mags, I have 10 rd mags for my defensive handguns and can get more after the ban goes into effect. Should I carry the guns loaded, off my private property, it will be with 10 rd mags. If you were to ask one of the gun control advocates what the intention of this part of 114 is, they would probably say it is to reduce the incidence of people "using high capacity mags to shoot other people".

Washington's Ban is very different ... it lets you carry the mags and posse them everywhere you used to be able too and requires the state to prove you brought them in. Our ban restricts that to transportation to an ffl, or range or your private property. You have much less reason to be found with one as a result and it places the burden of proof on you.

I suspect this to be used more to add additional charges. If they get you for something else, they will use this to tack on charges to make sure you get nailed. It is the same with the war on drugs which is no the war on guns.

I believe we will see much like California did a complete ban on these mags in the next 2-3 years in a legislative session unless the 9th circuit actually overrules it. Even if they do I suspect something like a limit on having them in places like how it is to stay in effect. You can buy them but you can't have them anywhere but these places kind of thing.

Remember this is all uncharted waters and we are an easy target for trying new gun control ...

 

[zomie]

If we ever see somebody charged with possession of >10rd mags in Oregon or WA, it will be where the mags have a manufacture date (of some sort) marked on them after the "ban" goes into effect. I really doubt that the state is going to try to go after anybody who has >10rd mags that have no date markings on them.

Besides the stated goal, assuming the law isn't struck down in court, the goal of the gov/et. al., is to stop the legal flow of >10rd mags into the state.

After that, and assuming they win any court battles, they will go for BGCs for ammo, active formal registration of "assault weapons", a gov approved whitelist of guns that can be sold/purchased, and so on. Once they have these and other restrictions (as much as possible), they will go for confiscation of "assault weapons" and so on - first from "undesirables", then the public in general.

That is the pattern they have used elsewhere.

You mean like what we just saw in Canada ... no it couldn't be ...

I wouldn't be shocked to see a push for a constitutional amendment to revoke the 2nd amendment in my life time.

 

[The Heretic]

I wouldn't be shocked to see a push for a constitutional amendment to revoke the 2nd amendment in my life time.

Both sides know that this is dangerous ground to tread on; once a Constitutional Convention is opened, anything can take place in that convention. They do not need to even address the original reason for the convention - they can amend the Constitution in any way they want to, or not. They could remove the BOR, they could totally rewrite the Constitution.

 

[zomie]

Both sides know that this is dangerous ground to tread on; once a Constitutional Convention is opened, anything can take place in that convention. They do not need to even address the original reason for the convention - they can amend the Constitution in any way they want to, or not. They could remove the BOR, they could totally rewrite the Constitution.

Well it is the issues with a two party system ... as it grows both parties get more extreme and try to trump the other.

 

[CountryGent]

But like I said, I believe people are over thinking this.

^.

 

[ma96782]

When did all change?

It's for the STATE to prove you GUILTY.

Aloha, Mark

PS......IF you still don't understand?