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.
Again it doesn't work that way. There are no standards of proof for possessor other than preponderance of the evidence that the possessor must use for affirmative defense. Prosecution's only burden of proof is possession. Nothing at all to do with the date.My thoughts (not a lawyer) is that if they are going to place the burden of proof on the individual as to when they purchased the magazines, they would have to create a standard for "proof." If you owned the gun that accepts the magazine prior to their ban, plausible deniability seems to come into play. Why would you own the gun without the proper magazine for it?
I honestly think the backdate thing is bogus and is one of the first things that would have to be revised. If 114 was injuncted and eventually is repealed, the timeline to it is no longer applicable. What's next? We were "thinking" about making this law 10 years ago so we can now backdate it to then? They're really reaching and even a liberal judge should see that.
If you bought a legal machine gun in the 1950s (ie a time when they were legal to buy) and possess it today you will have to show it's legal. Because you bought it at a time it was legal to buy does not mean it's legal today unfortunately.This is true but might makes this whole thing look a lot worse in higher courts. Usually, ceding a grandfather clause is how they sidestep the courts. They even opened a gap in California's magazine ban that allowed purchase for a small window of time.
This would be a lot like the ATF directly telling people braces were okay to own and then suddenly trying to make them illegal and turn people into felons overnight. They were legally purchased. Bump stocks were legally purchased. If they would have aimed at halting production and forward dating a ban of sales or imports, they probably would have had gotten their way. Pettiness cuts both ways.
Raschio pointed that out in his ruling:I'm sorry your honor, I can not enter a plea because my constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty is being violated. Just for fun I also have the right to not incriminate myself, but I do swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
That's why this won't pass... and if it somehow does due to their incessant shifting of goal posts to get a victory, it will be sued by FPC and any other legal organization who can fight against the unconstitutionality with a team of lawyers. It hasn't been working so well for them up to the federal level. They're being petty and wasting taxpayer dollars because they're essentially spoiled children who have friends in positions of power in the state. If it didn't work for bump stocks or braces, both which are less integral to the function of a firearm than a magazine, I imagine they'll be up to their eyeballs.If you bought a legal machine gun in the 1950s (ie a time when they were legal to buy) and possess it today you will have to show it's legal. Possession of the mags is illegal as the law is written. But you can use affirmative defense if meets certain conditions. In this case own before effective date AND meet the other conditions shown in above posts that have a screenshot of the law. That burden of proof for affirmative defense is not on the prosecutor, it's on the defense.
That would be great if it doesn't pass. And I think you are right on the money about it being unconstitutional. I would say there is a 99.9% chance it will pass personally due to all D majority and D legislators want civilian disarmament, one piece at a time.That's why this won't pass... and if it somehow does due to their incessant shifting of goal posts to get a victory, it will be sued by FPC and any other legal organization who can fight against the unconstitutionality with a team of lawyers. It hasn't been working so well for them up to the federal level. They're being petty and wasting taxpayer dollars because they're essentially spoiled children who have friends in positions of power in the state. If it didn't work for bump stocks or braces, both which are less integral to the function of a firearm than a magazine, I imagine they'll be up to their eyeballs.
While I haven't read through every detail in the bill, I'm assuming a mag ban would encompass all types of firearms, most of which are designed to take 10+ round mags. Which makes for a lot of common use firearms. How many people have recently taken to firearms and bought something in the last year or two that would be affected by this?That would be great if it doesn't pass. And I think you are right on the money about it being unconstitutional. I would say there is a 99.9% chance it will pass personally due to all D majority and D legislators want civilian disarmament, one piece at a time.
But we may know as soon as tomorrow (Jan 17) if SCOTUS will hear the mag ban case (ocean state tactical). Or at the latest Jan 26 I think is the date. If they rule in favor of 2A in July(ish) that should make the road to overturning illegal mag ban laws easier. Here's hoping anyway.
This is what we need. For our friends in WA, and elsewhere around the country too. Hell I'd like to see CA and NY get their mags back but I feel like those places are just so far gone. Maybe.
I may have seen that truck!"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
This was a bumper sticker referencing the 1968 GCA that I remember seeing on a truck when I was a kid.
It's a true story.
@NeoBlackdog it was on a Chevy in front of the Coast to Coast store in the early 70's.![]()
How do you figure? According to their site, they aren't restricting any sales except third party filled magazine orders and haven't for a long timeIt looks like PSA is off the menu.
Is ruling any day now an outcome that was on the table? It seems like the bill was just introduced and there's usually a back and forth with proposed amendments and whatnot before it's voted on as far as I understood (but I am not a legislative expert by any means)Was going to say they'll ship as long as it's not coming from a third party and that I got an order a couple days ago, but they really did stop this time. Guess they expect the ruling any day now.
View attachment 2022071
114 is from over 2 years ago. The new bill doesn't have anything to do with this unless Palmetto expects it to pass before the 114 ruling and is scared about the backdated part.Is ruling any day now an outcome that was on the table? It seems like the bill was just introduced and there's usually a back and forth with proposed amendments and whatnot before it's voted on as far as I understood (but I am not a legislative expert by any means)