Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'll pass.If these questions are asked often enough, someone will implement a process...
...and, most probably, an unwanted process.
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.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 ?
Actually, it may indeed show up on google if you ever share it online."Sir your photo evidence is also the first picture in Google search when you search magazine date code!"
Me, "My picture is on Google?"
Who has been cited in WA state?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.
DING>>>>>DING>>>>>>DING WE HAVE A WINNER!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.
Not quite my point.Who has been cited in WA state?
I haven't heard of anybody and it has been a while.
Well I know an engraver and........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.
Proof of when you took a picture maybe.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.
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.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.
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.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".
You mean like what we just saw in Canada ... no it couldn't be ...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.
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.I wouldn't be shocked to see a push for a constitutional amendment to revoke the 2nd amendment in my life time.
Well it is the issues with a two party system ... as it grows both parties get more extreme and try to trump the other.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.
^.But like I said, I believe people are over thinking this.