- Messages
- 18
- Reactions
- 22
With due respect, I think folks aren't aware that "affirmative defense" is NOT unconstitutional and is a cornerstone of American law.114 does say that, but by that same logic, a cop can walk to you and say "you stole that money that you have in your pocket, prove that you didn't do it", hence being quite questionable, the burden to prove that someone committed a crime is on the prosecution, is on that entity bringing the charge. As I said , I know 114 says the opposite hence being shaky from that angle as well.
114 makes magazines with capacity over 10 rounds illegal (outside of you home, the range, etc.). They carve out an exception of this law to those who bought these magazines before the declared date. So if you are arrested for possession of magazines of over 10 rounds, you need to mount an affirmative defense showing how you are an exception to this law.
Self defense is also an affirmative defense example. Killing someone is against the law. But the law carves out exceptions like self-defense. So if the prosecutor can show beyond a reasonable doubt that you shot someone, YOU must mount the affirmative defense of showing that it was self-defense (by predominance of evidence standard, which is more likely than not).
There are some interesting arguments about 114 on constitutional grounds, but not "affirmative defense." It's used throughout the law commonly.