got an illegal (LEO) mag on the internet-what to do?


PDA






Peter Gun
December 31, 2002, 10:58 PM
Hello everyone, my first post on the new board. Good to see so many familiar names from TFL.
I recently got a 12 rnd mag for my sig 229 over the web. I paid paypal and it was shipped promptly but arrived quite clearly marked "restricted for Law enforcement only". I e-mailed the seller (not expecting a response) and he claims it was not marked LEO and I'm playing games with him.
I'm not keeping the mag no matter what because 2 extra rounds arnt worth the risk and this is my carry gun. He says he wants me to take a picture, but I dont have a digicam so its going to be a pain in the butt to do. I find it hard to beleive he really didnt know it was LEO, but I guess I'll go through the motions. If he wont refund after getting a picture I plan on contacting paypal and then bringing it down to the local PD. Unless he was smart enough to wipe it down , his prints are probably on it still. Hopefully he is a member of this forum and will see I'm not screwing around.
Any other Ideas on how to handle this?

If you enjoyed reading about "got an illegal (LEO) mag on the internet-what to do?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AZTOY
December 31, 2002, 11:04 PM
Wecome Peter Gun
Maybe this will help.http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1141

4v50 Gary
December 31, 2002, 11:09 PM
I'm not familar with Paypal. Can they, like credit cards, deny the charges?

Rather than suffer a total loss, if nothing else, find a cop who will buy it at market (LE) rate. You can post it here at THR.

(No guys, not self serving & I'm not interested in a 229 mag).

roscoe
January 1, 2003, 12:10 AM
I don't get it. What does the fact that it has writing on it have to do with its legality? A 12-round magazine is a 12-round magazine.

444
January 1, 2003, 12:20 AM
If it is marked LE only that means that it was manufactured after the ban, and we mortals arn't allowed to own it.

Look, I see where you are coming from. It sounds like the guy was less than honest. But is it really worth possibly ruining the guys life over this mag. I can see not wanting to get yourself in trouble, and I can see you being mad about the whole situation, but what you are talking about doing could have some huge consequenses for this guy. I don't know the guy, and I am not sticking up for what he did to you, but I think you should reconsider.
There have been countless threads posted about shooting someone over personal property. Many people argue that your personal property isn't worth someone's life. This is very similar.
Worst case senario, you throw the mag in a river somewhere and take the loss. It is terrible that you would have to do that. But possibly bringing down the ATF on this guy is way out of line.

deanf
January 1, 2003, 01:24 AM
Perhaps the seller is setting you up. Maybe he's ATF, or who knows what.

I would cease all further communication (self-incrimination) and send the mags back return-receipt-requested, and include a clear statement that you did not want to purchase LE only mags in the first place, and you certainly don't want the ones you're sending back. After that I would report this person for anything you can think of to anyone you can think of.

Blackhawk
January 1, 2003, 01:30 AM
So you paid $x for the mag. How much is the lesson worth?

I'm with 444 on this, but I'd go a bit further. I'd destroy it, which renders it useless and therefore not illegal. Then I'd toss it in the river.

Preacherman
January 1, 2003, 10:17 AM
Peter Gun, I'm afraid I don't go with our brethren (and sistren?) who recommend junking this magazine and leaving it there. If the seller did this to you, he has done / will do it to others. If I were you, I'd write him a lawyer's letter, outlining fully your complaint, and requesting a refund PLUS LEGAL EXPENSES. I would also advise him, in the letter, that if you did not receive satisfaction within an appropriate period of time (say 30 days from the date of your letter?), you would refer the matter to Federal law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution. While awaiting a response, I'd leave the offending magazine(s) in my lawyer's safe, clearly marked as pending legal action. That way, if the ATF or anyone else gets interested, you've covered yourself as best you can.

(And, yes, if the seller didn't make good, I WOULD hand the case to the ATF and let him/her take the consequences. Theft is theft, and deception is deception. There's too much of it around! :fire: )

Sean Smith
January 1, 2003, 10:57 AM
Call the ATF. I'm serious. I'm not a beliver in the laws in question, or the sprit behind them, or pretty much anything that keeps me from mounting an 81mm mortar on my patio. But the seller knowingly involved you in a criminal enterprise just so he could turn a buck. To me, that has scumbag written all over it.

The bastard put your liberty, and possibly your life (see no-knock raid topics for details) at risk so he could make some buck selling illegal mags that you didn't want. Burn him.

Preacherman
January 1, 2003, 11:21 AM
Adding to Sean's comment - please don't call the ATF UNTIL you've sent the lawyer's letter! Otherwise, you might meet up with some bureaucratic idiot who will think to himself "Hey, now, here's a non-LEO with an LEO magazine, coming to my door. I can nail HIM for a violation right now - why go to all the trouble of investigating the guy whom he claims illegally sold him the magazine?" If you get the impression I've dealt with such bureaucrats before, you're right... :banghead:

JackShandy
January 1, 2003, 12:29 PM
...all high-capacity mags mfg. after the ban are labeled for LEO? So any 15 round mag I get a hold of without such markings is legal?
Thanks.

Gary H
January 1, 2003, 12:56 PM
I would do what it took to protect myself and to put this guy out of business.

I would contact the ATF and write the letter.

2nd Amendment
January 1, 2003, 01:10 PM
Well, I can hear the screams now but I'm going to go ahead and say this.

LE Only?

Says who?

For what reason?

On whose legitimate authority?

Does everyone here jump through every damn legal hoop the government pukes up out of terror? Cowardice?

No, let me guess, honesty. It makes one more honest to scurry off to obey some minor and non-sensical "law" that everyone here spends all the rest of their time condemning and cursing.

I've never gotten an LE Only marked mag. If I ever do I can guarantee I'll buzz the markings off, refinish it and forget about it. Nobody will ever know or even have reason to suspect or care nor will I feel less than honest, because it is this "law" that is wrong, immoral and probably unconstitutional.

Y'all worry too much. And if we can't even take a stand by laughing off something like this and going on with life and without concern about it what is all this talk about "Where's the line?"

Blackcloud6
January 1, 2003, 01:28 PM
>>It sounds like the guy was less than honest. But is it really worth possibly ruining the guys life over this mag. I can see not wanting to get yourself in trouble, and I can see you being mad about the whole situation, but what you are talking about doing could have some huge consequenses for this guy. I don't know the guy, and I am not sticking up for what he did to you, but I think you should reconsider. <<

I can't agree with this at all. The seller is being dishonest and these types ruin the integrity of online sales, eBay, Paypal etc. They should be stopped in their tracks. Dishonest is dishonest, wrong is wrong.

Now, if when he was emailed about the problem and he he said. "Oops, sorry, I didn't know, please send back for a full refund." Then I would drop it. ASn hoest mistake is just a mistake and can be forgiven.

I buy and sell a lot through eBay and the crooks need to be stopped.

pax
January 1, 2003, 01:35 PM
Preacherman is right.

You don't want to ruin the guy's life, unnecessarily. So get a lawyer involved, cover your fanny, and give the guy a chance to fix it. If he doesn't, sic the ATF on him.

As for 444's advice. 444 is right on the other thread and wrong on this one. The other situation involves a problem which the seller could have caused by accident, so there's much more room to just let it go as far as the seller is concerned.

But this case seems pretty cut and dried, to me. The guy was willing to ruin your life to turn a buck. If your response ruins his life, it is no different than any other form of self-defense: regrettable, but his own fault.

pax

You live and learn, or you don't live long. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Sean Smith
January 1, 2003, 03:01 PM
2nd Ammendment (the poster) is missing the point.

I don't care if you traffic in "illegal" (read: normal) magazines to your heart's content. I think the law is dopey and unconstitutional. Heck, if you want to start a mass campaign of civil disobedience against the stupid law, go for it. The last thing I'd do is narc on y'all. Buy, sell and trade "illicit" (read: fun) weapons all you want for all I care.

But that's not the issue. The topic starter was unwittingly, without his consent, involved in a criminal enterprise by some dumb greed freak. The seller isn't some noble Robin Hood of firepower here... he is trying to dupe and rip off people while placing their liberty in danger without their consent. Unless, of course, you trust the ATF and other instruments of state power to be merciful when you break a "stupid" law. :rolleyes:

Look at this from a hypothetical situation not involving guns...

If I'm trying to buy chocolate ice-cream online, and some guy sends me cheap Bolivian marijuana-laced chocolate ice cream and pretends it is normal chocolate, he is making me part of a criminal activity and hoping I don't realize it just so he can make a buck. Now, maybe I think laws giving huge criminal penalties for posession of marijuana are fascistic. And in fact, pot-laced ice cream has a certain symmetry to it. But the problem isn't pot, the problem is putting someone in danger of violating a stupid law with draconian penalties without their prior knowledge.

2nd Amendment
January 1, 2003, 05:08 PM
Thing is your hypothetical icecream isn't going to be sent by mistake. The sender will know, almost without question. OTOH so far as I see in this thread, we have no idea if the sender of the mag is a cheat, "greed freak" or just some guy that found a mag in the bottom of his sock drawer and ebayed it.

I said I've never had an LE marked mag. I've thought about it since making that post and the fact is, I've never checked. I may have had dozens. It isn't something that ever occurred to me to look for. If any of the mags I've had for any of the guns I've had were marked then I sold 'em that way. Some on ebay, some elsewhere, but all without ever thinking to look.

I have no idea if this guy ever thought of it either but I do know before I would put myself in a tizzy, mess with the legal system, allow myself to be placed under a microscope and possibly offer ATF or some over-zealous local/state boy a chance to find some obscure violation of my own I'd forget about it. Fix the mag, write the seller off as potential trouble and go on living.

The law applicable here would be the last and least consideration on my mind and if it isn't a consideration then there's really no problem...yet. BTW, I never miss the point.

riverdog
January 1, 2003, 05:31 PM
You didn't say what you paid for this contraband, but pulling some numbers out of the air ...

Pre Ban mag = ~$100

LEO only mag = ~$15

100-15= $85 pure profit times every LEO mag he's sold as pre-ban. Pretty soon we're talking real money here.

Unlike some who would have you be gentle with this perp, I wouldn't be gentle at all. He may be legit and this is an honest mistake; OTOH, you could be one of many he's scammed. I'd keep this mag in a ziploc bag and send the lawyer letter and follow through if you aren't refunded immediately.

Blackhawk
January 1, 2003, 07:04 PM
Anybody got a handy link to the text of this mag law?

Sean Smith
January 1, 2003, 07:09 PM
2nd Ammendment,

Aside from the fact that LE-only mags are stamped "Law Enforcement Only" in great big letters? :rolleyes:

So obviously, yeah, you did miss the point. ;)

Guyon
January 1, 2003, 07:28 PM
I'd put the mag in a safe place (ie. cannot be found) while you give the guy a chance to reimburse you. If he's really a scumbag, he could ostensibly call the ATF and tell them that you bought a high-cap from him and are now trying to return an LEO only mag. Last thing you want is the ATF coming to your house and finding this illegal mag.

2nd Amendment
January 1, 2003, 07:56 PM
Went and found an LE only mag. Buddy has several, previously unbeknownst to me. Course they are for his Glock which ends all curiosity for me. They are stamped in itty-bitty letters on the back of the mag. Easy enough to read if you care to look, not enough to get your attention if you aren't looking.

BTW, you missed my point about never missing the point. Get it?

:D

Wildalaska
January 1, 2003, 07:59 PM
Send him the letter, then call the ATF and hand them the mag (if they want it)...eat the cost if necessary.

Gives a bad name to all legitimate dealers, and adds to the lawlessness image that the anits have...

Put him out of business...

444
January 1, 2003, 08:09 PM
Two things I really like about this type of thread.

1). I love to see the true colors of people. We have signature lines that say things like Molon Labe! implying that we would fight tooth and nail to keep our guns. But in reality, when a problem comes up as basic as having some unathorized writing on the side of a magazine, we all want to run to our friends of the gestapo and turn in the seller. Why ? Because we are good citizens that do exactly what our masters tell us to do. I have read threads about civil disobience up to and inculding revolutions if our guns are outlawed. Anyone who actually had the guts to try something like that to preserve their freedom would be ratted out the first day by their fellow gun owners. Reveloution ? We can't wait to get in bed with the state over writing on the side of a magazine.

2) A lot of posts, and some threads have religous overtones; asking for our prayers or whatever. This of course implys that we follow these religous beliefs. I am no bible scholor, but I somehow missed the part about retaliation with the goal of totally destroying the other persons life. I do remember something about, turn the other cheek.

Mike Irwin
January 1, 2003, 08:15 PM
"I am no bible scholor, but I somehow missed the part about retaliation with the goal of totally destroying the other persons life."

That's in the book of Armaments, Chapter 22, verse 12.

A few verses after the detailed instructions for arming the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

cuchulainn
January 1, 2003, 08:39 PM
Blackhawk,
http://resource.lawlinks.com/Content/Legal_Research/US_code/Title_18/title_18_44.htm



18 USC CHAPTER 44 - FIREARMS

<snip>

921(a)(31) The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' -

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactures after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition

<snip>

922(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

<snip>

Sec. 924. Penalties
(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929, whoever -
<snip>
(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), (v), or (w) of section 922;
<snip>
(D) willfully violates any other provision of this chapter, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

cuchulainn
January 1, 2003, 08:44 PM
never mind

labgrade
January 1, 2003, 09:15 PM
cuchulainn,

Your "never mind" was what I should have posted.

However, I can't. Call me stupid, I hafta go with this ....

I'm pretty torn on this for the information given to date.

Frankly, if I got a good deal on it (whoop! a "savings" for actuallu owning a +2 mag! How Glorious! :rolleyes: ), I'd just keep the darned thing & think not another about it.

But, it what could be worth that? - what may be?

On the other hand, could be there's an ATF-puke (is there any other kind?) out the looking to smooze some easy pickin's. Yup. Call me paranoid - justifiably, I'd think.

Peter's CYA-stance somehow seems most appropriate - damn it all!

For all you "let's just enforce the current laws" freaks, I say, "ahem, & many other unspeakables." Suffice that enough.

Here's one of those Project Exile-things you could get a Reward, for turning in your brethern, & "do a good turn daily by just enforcing current laws."

I want to throw up.

Consider this full-well everythime you buy into this "just enforce the current law" BS.

A fellow member, unknowingly has in his possession a "high-cap" magazine. This is a felony.

He could be forever stripped of his job, his wife, his kids, his liberties forever - & as a stretch, have his door kicked in & his life taken in a No-Knock - smoked with 30+ rounds of supressed government 9mm.

All of which none of these guv-guys ever had to have any prior approval to get:

their high-cap mags

their flash bang devices

their suppressors

their full-autos

any of their cool toys so denied to us mere mortals

AND

The Stamp of Approval by a judge to allow all this gang-bang activity in his house.

All in the name of "law & order."

He, after all, had possession of an item prohibited by law.

That this could actually be part of our "judicial system" is so blatantly abhorant to me is akin to actual insanity.

That some of my TFL/THR bretheren ascribe to Project Exile-type legalese is .... well, expect a severe toungue-lashing any & every time, Bros.

[/rant, but further outrage saved for later .... ]

444
January 1, 2003, 09:22 PM
"Here's one of those Project Exile-things you could get a Reward, for turning in your brethern, & "do a good turn daily by just enforcing current laws." "

I was thinking the same thing. When all guns and all gun accessories are outlawed, What kind of reward money will make you turn in your former friends or aquaintences ? $160. Or will you do it because their possession is illegal ?

Preacherman
January 1, 2003, 10:05 PM
444, please understand that I respect your point of view, and share it in the sense that I think the ban on high-capacity magazines is utterly useless in achieving its stated purpose. However, we do live in a society governed by this law, whether we like it or not.

As I understand the situation, the purchaser paid for a legal, pre-ban, high-capacity magazine, and received instead an illegal, post-ban, high-capacity magazine. This has placed him in immediate legal jeopardy - the mere possession of such an article is grounds for felony charges! This is why I said (and still say) that the purchaser should send a lawyer's letter to the seller, and while waiting for an answer, place the magazine in the lawyer's safe, clearly marked as to its ownership and the legal issues involved. This will do two things: it will demonstrate that the purchaser is doing his best to obey the law; and it will remove the magazine from his possession, thereby preventing any charges being laid against him.

A further point. As I said earlier, if the seller has done this now, he's probably done it before, and will probably do it again. My interest is in making sure that he is stopped from committing these crimes himself, and from making others accomplices in his crimes! If this means reporting him to the ATF, so be it - it's the same, morally, in my opinion, as reporting a pawnshop owner whom you are sure is selling property that he knows to be stolen goods. Not only is the pawnshop owner committing a crime himself, he's making his purchasers liable to a charge of receiving stolen property! Even if they get off this charge, they will certainly lose their property (and the money they paid for it) if and when the police arrive to recover it.

I'm sorry if you don't agree with my position on this matter. Nevertheless, please understand that I do recognize where you're coming from, and in a perfect world, we wouldn't have to worry about these things! Here's hoping that we can obtain the "sunset" of the 1994 legislation soon, and then problems like this will no longer occur.

pax
January 1, 2003, 10:07 PM
Labgrade, 444,

For the most part, I think we agree. The law stinks worse than a three-days-dead skunk.

Fact is, though, Peter Gun posted on the internet that he has, in his possession, this item which has the potential to ruin his life.

What shall we advise him to do? Hang on to it, and thus play a deadly game of roulette with the KGB (errr, ATF)? I don't think so. If he wanted to hang onto it, he wouldn't have told the world about it! (Or else he's stupider than his posts give reason to believe.)

This is a bad law, a law which in a just world would have no force because it violates the highest law of this fair land.

But this is not a just world, and I doubt Peter is ready to die on the barricades just yet -- especially considering that neither you, nor any other poster to this thread, is prepared to come and die alongside him.

Lest you think I am over stating the case, I ask you to remember what caused the death of a 12 year old boy at Ruby Ridge. Why were the feds there at all? Something about a weapons violation? A weapon that was millimeters away from being legal? And no more deadly than its legal counterpart. Weaver was nagged and pushed into violating the law and it ultimately cost him his freedom, and the lives of his wife and son. I think the human rat who pushed him into that corner was initiating an attack worthy of self defense on Weaver's part. And I think that since force is properly met with like force, Weaver should have sicced the law on the rat, before the rat and his buddies could destroy everything that Weaver loved.

What I suggested wasn't a mere tit-for-tat search for revenge. It was that Peter Gun defend his life from the fellow who put it at risk.

pax

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- A. H. Weiler

Graystar
January 1, 2003, 10:14 PM
If I were you, I'd turn the mag over to the feds and tell them exactly what happened. Let THEM go after the guy. You may lose your money, but it's better than going to jail.

Remember that at this very moment you are in violation of the law. The longer you wait, the more questions there will be as to why it took you so long to go to the feds.

The reason I say this is because it seems like people end up going to jail when their illegally possessed objects come to light through some freak event. For example, lets say your house burns down tomorrow. Some fireman is going to find the mag while investigating and turn it over to the cops...see what I'm saying?

Turn it in. It's the safest thing to do.

444
January 1, 2003, 10:24 PM
I am sure my point in my last post was not lost on you. Where do you draw the line on turning in people for weapons violations ? As gun laws become more and more strict, there will be more an more illegal items. This is where the phrase "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" comes from. If we see the need to turn people in for magazines, then it follows logically that if bolt action rifles were illegal we would not have a problem turning someone in for that also. It is clear to me that we talk a good game about defending our rights to the end, but in reality it is just that; talk.

There is a very interesting part of Atlas Shrugged where Hank Reardon asks someone from the government something to the effect; How can you expect me to comply with all these laws ? And the guy from the government says; We don't. That is the whole point. If we make enough laws, everyone will be a criminal and will be under our total control.

"What shall we advise him to do? Hang on to it, and thus play a deadly game of roulette with the KGB (errr, ATF)? I"
No, my advice was to get rid of the magazine in question and let that be the end of it. Again, two wrongs don't make a right. He got screwed, screwing someone else doesn't change anything. In other words, Turn the other cheek.

If you think what happened at Ruby Ridge was terrible, why would you want to sic those same people on someone else ? Or is it OK in this instance ? If you somehow ruined someone elses life when you didn't really have to would you feel bad about it ? Or is it OK in this instance ? Because he doesn't have to ruin the guys life.

Wildalaska
January 1, 2003, 10:26 PM
On the other hand, could be there's an ATF-puke (is there any other kind?)

Yes there are many ATF agents who are good, law abiding normal people who do their jobs in an honorable manner, and for you to classify all of them as pukes does a disservice to this Board....and all gun owners...

Redlg155
January 1, 2003, 10:45 PM
I personally don't think the added expense of a lawyer drafted letter is warranted, but you can draft a letter explaining what was advertised, what you purchased, what you recieved, and that you feel that you recieved the item in error and would request a refund.

Keep copies of everything including the a copy of the original add and any correspondence.

Return the magazine along with your letter and all should be well. If this was a part of an Internet sting you will most likely be released from any further investigation by returning the item in good faith.

It reminds me of someone posting a C&R story some time ago. They purchased a C&R pistol via license and had the weapon sent to them. The ATF had not in fact released these weapons for C&R status, requiring the weapons be sent back to the distributor. Could have the C&R license holders be technically guilty of a felony along with the distributor? Yes.

A mistake was made on behalf of the distributor and the purchaser acted in good faith and rectified the matter by sending the weapons back to the manufacturer. Refund granted and case closed.

Now had the purchaser decided to contact the ATF concerning the distributors error it would have been a totally different ball of wax.

Give the seller a chance to clear up his mistakes while clearing your name. If that doesn't work then take he next step.

Good Shooting
RED

pax
January 1, 2003, 10:52 PM
444,

Yes, I got your point. Rather too well, I'm afraid. You are right, on a philosophical level (which is much where I prefer to live). On a pragmatic level --

Well, let's just say, I don't think it's time, yet. {edited to add: time for civil disobedience, especially in view of the fact that it would be scattered incidents rather than en masse, and thus more deadly for the participants. I think the system is still, just barely, fixable. Getting less fixable by the day, but it's not time to give up on it yet.}
If you think what happened at Ruby Ridge was terrible, why would you want to sic those same people on someone else ? Or is it OK in this instance ? If you somehow ruined someone elses life when you didn't really have to would you feel bad about it ? Or is it OK in this instance ? Because he doesn't have to ruin the guys life.
Reread my paragraph on this topic, please. I was insinuating that our fellow Roadster might be being set up. How would we know? Maybe not reporting it is the most deadly bit of advice you can give him. Maybe not. I don't know ... but if it's that kind of thing, he needs to defend himself with like force.

pax

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to start shooting the bastards. -- Claire Wolfe

labgrade
January 1, 2003, 10:53 PM
Had a(nother) rant.

"... & edited it out because it's not worthy of you. of me, or THR.

Forgive me for my choice of words & lapse in judgement."

Usually don't delete my stuff, mostly leaving as a "monument to my own stupidity - couldn't leave this one her.

Again, A heartfelt sorry."

grampster
January 1, 2003, 11:01 PM
444,
About your #2 point on the first page of this thread......The same Person who said to turn the other cheek also said......INSOFAR AS IS POSSIBLE live at peace with your neighbor..
About your #1 point.....100% agreement.
grampster

444
January 1, 2003, 11:08 PM
As much as I like to argue, I have to admit that you have a valid point PAX.
My revised position after thinking about this and reading the comments here; I would return the magazines along with a letter stating why I am returning them and would ask the guy to refund my money. If he didn't I would accept the loss as a risk you take when you buy stuff sight un-seen from people you don't know.

"The same Person who said to turn the other cheek also said......INSOFAR AS IS POSSIBLE live at peace with your neighbor..
And in this case, it is possible.

pax
January 1, 2003, 11:24 PM
444,

Well, now, that just took all the wind right out of my sails! :D

Okay. I'll concede that reporting the guy is a Bad Thing To Do, and you just conceded that simply destroying the mag Ain't Real Smart.

Hmmph. An agreement? Online? Now what? This has never happened to me before.... :confused:

pax

You're only so sure you're right because they're so sure you're wrong. -- Orson Scott Card

444
January 1, 2003, 11:27 PM
Well, what can I say ? You were right.

cratz2
January 2, 2003, 01:34 AM
I don't know... even sending it back would constitute transporting a controlled item, no?

I know with paypal, you can put a hold on his acct by saying the item was not as described. Then if he can't prove that it WAS as described, you get your money back. Of course, this only works if/when there are funds in his acct. I doubt that eBay (which now owns paypal) will support this sort of mis-representation.

Gary H
January 2, 2003, 02:11 AM
By the time we finish this thread you might be wise to consult a lawyer. Heck, nobody knows what the right things is. That is because right and legal are not always the same thing. This thing has grown beyond reasonable. You should not be in this position and we may not be giving you the best advice. Aren't there legal firms that provide low cost legal advice in just such matters? Out of 2000 member there must be an attorney lurking about. That person is smart enough to not give advice, or maybe they have already posted above..not me..

voilsb
January 2, 2003, 02:46 AM
The way the law is written, any hi-capacity magazine lacking such markings is assumed to be pre-ban, and therefore legal.

There was a huge discussion of this in the legal section over at AR-15.com, and the consensus of many intelligent people and the wording of the law is in agreement with what I just said.

JackShandy wrote:
...all high-capacity mags mfg. after the ban are labeled for LEO? So any 15 round mag I get a hold of without such markings is legal?
Thanks.

Peter Gun
January 3, 2003, 03:50 PM
Thanks for all the advice guys.
I was torn on this one as well as I do not want to get someone in trouble for a law I dont beleive in, but he got me involved in an illegal activity, so I dont have too much sympathy and I'm not willing to just piss the money away to him.
At first I thought he might just be ignorant of the law so I explained it to him, but he completely denied they were marked LEO. I gave him an opportunity to refund my money and I even offered to pay return ship, but he seems determined to be a dick and denies it's LEO.
I'm going to contact paypal next and if that gets me nowhere I am reporting him to ATF. I'm sorry but my solidarity with this guy ended when he screwed me. I even tried to let him back down without actually mentioning anything illegal in e-mail.
I also feel that I now have to protect myself because I have documented my thoughts on the internet and in e-mail.
Thanks again. I'll let you know how it goes.

444
January 3, 2003, 03:55 PM
I seen to remember a story about a guy named Judas.....................

2nd Amendment
January 3, 2003, 03:58 PM
Regardless of anything else I'll stick to one point I made and restate it: Calling the "Authorities" not only gets him noticed, it gets you noticed. Are you absolutely certain that you know every law today and that everything you own conforms to not only those laws but all possible interpretations of those laws by the JBT's?

Yes? Then you've got me beat. No? Then think long and hard before calling your friendly neighborhood thug, erm, ATF.

Wildalaska
January 3, 2003, 07:27 PM
I seen to remember a story about a guy named Judas.....................

If you are referring to the man who is ensuring that he is not part of a crime, that is uncalled for...

55645
January 3, 2003, 09:13 PM
Yes there are many ATF agents who are good, law abiding normal people who do their jobs in an honorable manner, and for you to classify all of them as pukes does a disservice to this Board....and all gun owners...





Sure, they're only following orders. There're all kinds of ways to make a living pal, they just happened to have chosen one run by pukes.

Wildalaska
January 3, 2003, 09:22 PM
Sure, they're only following orders. There're all kinds of ways to make a living pal, they just happened to have chosen one run by pukes.

Ok "pal" since its guilt by association..all gun owners are Nazis?

2nd Amendment
January 3, 2003, 09:23 PM
There's that Nazi thing again...

.45FMJoe
January 3, 2003, 09:43 PM
I find 444's response very disturbing, especially coming from a gun owner. His response is, in my opinion, the very reason for the demise of our society and quality of life. What do I speak of? Responsibility. Responsibility is what has brought about the downfall of the classic American life. Back in the "good old days" there was less crime, there were less lawsuits, there was less bull****. I personally was not there, however the stories I hear from my father and grandfather are proof enough. Gun manufacturers and dealers were not sued if someone purchased a firearm through them and killed people. Why? Because it's not their fault ... its sole blame should be placed on the individual who committed the heinous act. Today, our legal system is a joke. Frivilous lawsuits run rampant at the expense of the general public, yet people are too ignorant and greedy to realize this. That $3 box of cookies you buy at Publix doesn't cost near that much to produce/distribute. No, part of that purchasing price is the equip the supermarket with full time video surveilence to protect itself against fraudulent slip and fall lawsuits. Part of that $3 is to pay the off-duty LEO working as a security gaurd to protect the store from theft and to keep its customers and employees happy. Sure, $3 isn't much ... but it's the principle that makes it a big deal. It's people who share 444's views that have driven the cost of firearms straight through the roof. My $800 stainless Colt 1991-A1 wasn't near that much to produce nor distribute. Personally, I abhor the views of people such as 444. Take that personally if you wish, but it's you and your type who are ruining this country for my heirs. IF you prove to the man who sold you the magazine that it is CLEARLY marked LEO only, he deserves whatever swift and merciless punishment the ATF exacts upon him. He must take RESPONSIBILITY for his actions. Furthermore, it should NOT be the buyers job to ask before bidding if it's an LEO only item. It's the seller's RESPONSIBILITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW to know WHAT HE IS SELLING and to only partake in transactions that are devoid of any violations of Federal law. The man purchasing the clip knew only that he was purchasing what was represented to him. The representation is the seller's RESPONSIBILITY. I'm going to shut up now and go grab a Pepsi and cool off.

Oh, and I am not a lawyer, I'm a dual major (chemical engineering/marine biology) student at the University of South Florida, but maybe I am going down the wrong path. LOL :D :D :D

444
January 3, 2003, 09:56 PM
"Gun manufacturers and dealers were not sued if someone purchased a firearm through them and killed people. Why? Because it's not their fault ... its sole blame should be placed on the individual who committed the heinous act. "
" IF you prove to the man who sold you the magazine that it is CLEARLY marked LEO only, he deserves whatever swift and merciless punishment the ATF exacts upon him. "

See any problem here ?

Gee Joe, you are going to hurt my feelings if you keep it up. Being responsible for the downfall of society is a heavy burden to carry without you rubbing it in.

45Badger
January 3, 2003, 10:06 PM
444-
The seller didn't invite anybody to a revolution. He sent a magazine that is illegal to own. The buyer doesn't necessarily want to participate in civil disobedience or a revolution over a LEO hi-cap. He wants a refund. If the pinhead seller won't make it right, why should ANYBODY defend or condone his actions, and seek to protect his well being?

If you want to start a revolution or start an exercise in civil disobedience- I say go for it! It's your business. If you want to change stupid, ineffectual laws, do it in the voting booth. That's how they got there in the first place.

.45FMJoe
January 3, 2003, 10:11 PM
It's the moral fabric of the society that is torn with every bleeding heart act. Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but I see every little detail as adding up to a whole.

Just 3 nights ago I was talking with a TPD officer friend of mine. He told me a story of one man, who is now in jail for life whom he arrested when he first became a cop some 20 years ago. It was habitual, they became kinda half-assed friends. The guy knew he was wrong and always let the officer arrest him. The man even gave the officer a derogatory nickname and told him "you got me this time, but I'll smoke you next time" and the officer would respond " I run 5 miles a day, you are gonna have to do better than that," etc. It was in the late 80's, amidst the beginnings of the media hype and when he went to arrest this man for the 8th time in his carreer, the man asked "It's 'cuz I'm black, isn't it _____?) Insert name here. He then asked the perp how many times he's ridden in the back of his squad car and how it was any different than the first 7 times.

See, to you 444 it's nothing, to me it's everything. Trying to place the blame on the LEO and calling him racist is the same as telling this man who purchased an illegal clip that he shouldn't turn the seller into the ATF because that's cruel and unusual punishment. What you are doing is removing the responsibility from the rightful parties and distributing it amongst the masses in an unfair manor. Do you see my point?

Oh and no, I do not favor the hi-cap ban either, I realize turning him in "gives in" to the law I despise, but you must weigh the two evils and make a conscious decision. It is my opinion, that turning him in is the lesser of the two evils. :)

444
January 3, 2003, 10:35 PM
I think that you two need to go back and read my previous posts. At no point did I condone this guys actions. In fact I was highly critical of his actions. If you feel the need to place blame somewhere, that is fine, although I have never understood how that is going to change anything. At no point did I advocate revolution or civil disobience. In fact, in every case I stated that my opinion was to get rid of the magazine ASAP. I also never once advocated knowingly breaking any laws. The problem I have with the whole situation is the idea that using the biggest possible hammer to iron out a problem such as this isn't IMO the answer. Maybe I am getting soft in my old age. I just don't see the reason to completely ruin another mans life over something like this. I think the punishment far outstrips the crime. And to me, the argument that he did it to me first belongs on the grade school playground.
Joe, you want to talk about moral fabric. Explain to me how it is moral to totally ruin this guys life, up to and possibly including his death (see Ruby Ridge) because of this crime he commited.

.45FMJoe
January 3, 2003, 10:46 PM
It sounds like the guy was less than honest. But is it really worth possibly ruining the guys life over this mag. I can see not wanting to get yourself in trouble ... but possibly bringing down the ATF on this guy is way out of line.

I just don't see the reason to completely ruin another mans life over something like this. I think the punishment far outstrips the crime.

Because, and if I knew your name I would adress you in a friendly, formal manner, the seller has obviously
consciously done the same thing to the buyer. It's not out of line for me to say that guns are not toys, they are very serious and there are VERY serious laws concerning the ownership/sales/trade/discharging of them and it's each individual's responsibility to know the laws for whatever they are dabbling in. "I didn't know it was only a 40 MPH zone" doesn't always get you out of a ticket does it? No, you were educated when you recieved your license, showed proficiency in handling an automobile AND signed a legal, binding contract with the state ACKNOWLEDGING and AGREEING to the responsibilities that go along with driving. Also, you acknowledged and agreed to any punishments that would be forced upon you for breaking those laws, willfully or not. Selling guns and gun parts is not like selling flowers. They are serious items and should be treated as such. By selling that magazine, he has knowingly or not agreed to all Federal laws regaurding gun ownership/sales and it's governing agency, the ATF. Yes, it might be harsh, but you have to know what you are doing. Would you willfully travel down a dark alley while traveling in another town/state, etc?

Bill St. Clair
January 3, 2003, 11:15 PM
The idea that there are good ATF agents brings to mind one of my favorite L. Neil Smith quotes:

"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bears arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers 'the security of a free state'? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."

Any law restricting possession of any weapon useful to the militia (that's us, all of us) is a blatant violation of the second amendment. Hence, every legislator who votes for such a law, and every LEO who enforces one, should be tried for treason.

Until the "F" is taken out of BATFE (the Homeland Security Act added "Explosives" to the list), every ATF agent who does his job is a traitor by definition.

Every LEO takes an oath to protect and defend the constitution. It is part of his duty to refuse to follow an unconsitutional order and to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law.

444
January 3, 2003, 11:21 PM
Responsibility.
That seems to be something that you are keenly interested in. You also make the statement "Would you willfully travel down a dark alley while traveling in another town/state, etc?" Think about this. If you decide to by something sight unseen, from someone you don't know, how much responsibility is yours ? I don't know the laws on selling these LE only mags, so I can't comment on it. I have over the years seen a number of items for sale that were barely legal. For example years ago, there were switchblade knive kits for sale. The contained a warning that if you put the knife together you were responsible. I used to see suppressor kits for sale at gunshows that contained the warning that all applicable laws applied and if you drilled a hole in the end of it, you were responsible. I currently see kits for sale for full auto weapons. These kits do not include a receiver. If you build or obtain a receiver, you may be in violation of the law. But on the other hand, in each case, there are people who can legally use these parts. For example, I own a legal Sten submachine gun. I could buy that parts kit for my own legal gun. However someone else might buy one an use it to put together an illegal gun. The problem here isn't with the seller, he is selling something that is perfectly legal in it's present form. Again, I don't know the laws in this case. Let me repeat that, I don't know the laws in this case. Do you have to submit valid proof that you are a LEO to buy one of these magazines ? Or is it up to you to make sure that you can legally buy the item ? Because I know it is legal to sell them, at least to LEO. So selling them in and of itself isn't a crime. I would guess that ID is required and this is all a moot point, but I don't know.

In another post you mention lawsuits. You also mention the costs of all these law suits. You mention how lawsuits end up effecting most every part of our lives. I agree. And I don't see this as being all that different. Instead of just accepting the fact that you were duped, ripped off, cheated, placed in a bad situation ................. You instead choose to involve a government agency to work this out for you. I realize that this isn't about money, but never the less the guy is out I think $160. How much is it going to cost the taxpayer to involve ATF ? Will calling them get him back the $160 ?

.45FMJoe
January 3, 2003, 11:30 PM
Yeah, I harp on responsibility. Like I said, its my opinion that responsibility, or lack thereof is what is killing this country.

Yes, from what I understand, it is the seller's responsibility, under Federal Law, to ONLY sell LEO parts to valid LEOs who can submit proof. That's why I say it is acceptable to make him face the music. IF I am wrong I will admit and apollogize, but only if you can prove me wrong.

As far as cost involving the ATF ... again, I think it's something that is necessary. We don't bitch about the cost of prosecuting demons such as David Westerfield who kidnapped, raped and murdered 7-year old Daniel van Dam. Oh what I would give to strap his ass into the electric chair and personally flip the switch. I would also shoot him point-blank in the head, but by admitting that, I have just proven I'm a blood crazed, homicidal lunatic that fits the stereotype of gun owners and I'm dangerous. :rolleyes:

But, I digress, there is a difference between costs from legitimate lawsuits and frivilous lawsuits. No, it will not get him his $160 back, what it will do is *hopefully* punish and teach the seller a lesson. Breaking laws = bad.

WonderNine
January 3, 2003, 11:31 PM
If you think what happened at Ruby Ridge was terrible, why would you want to sic those same people on someone else ?

While I'm the staunchest supporter of the 2nd, this guy ripped him off. The guy that sold him the mag is a dealer and probably payed $5 for it. Peter probably payed a hell of a lot more than that for a "preban" mag.

This has nothing to do with supporting gun control and everything to do with getting what you payed for. Wussing out will get you nowhere in life.

Peter, if I were you I would tell the seller that I am going to ship the mag back and demand that he give me a legal one. Where did you buy this mag from? Gunbroker? What is the sellers username?

55645
January 3, 2003, 11:42 PM
Ok "pal" since its guilt by association..all gun owners are Nazis?

Are you suggesting that BATF agents are merely "associating" with each other? All BATF agents are willing accomplices. The janitors at ATF are perhaps blameless. As far as Nazis and gunowners are concerned ... huh?

444
January 3, 2003, 11:44 PM
Throughout this whole thread I have never made a position on the magazine ban itself.

I think you need to realize that crime takes on many different faces. For example, we all know that there are numerous "crimes" that involve nothing but paperwork errors or omissions. Or "crimes" like this were the crime involves some lettering on the side of a magazine. Obviously there is no comparison between the rape and murder of a child and someone who possesses a magazine with the wrong lettering on the side of it. "there is a difference between costs from legitimate lawsuits and frivilous lawsuits". That may be true, but I consider this a frivilous crime. This is certainly not the type of thing I want my tax money spent on.

If this was a question of "what it will do is *hopefully* punish and teach the seller a lesson. Breaking laws = bad", that is one thing. However more than likely a SWAT team will decend on his house or business with the very weapons and magazines that we are not allowed to own. If he makes on false move they will fill him and anyone else full of lead. Assuming that doesn't happen, he will most likely lose everything he has and we can support him in federal prison; All that for selling a magazine with the wrong writing on the side.

444
January 3, 2003, 11:50 PM
Of course this will also no doubt attract media attention that will show his arsenal of guns, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. This guy (implying all gun owners) are dangerous and must be stamped out at any cost. Not to mention the fact that this is another case of the "internet" loophole that must be eliminated immediately.

.45FMJoe
January 3, 2003, 11:57 PM
As is evidenced by what the buyer claims, he would deserve to lose his license and sit in jail. Obviously this isn't set in stone because we haven't heard the seller's story. But, if it were intentional, or negligent and unwilling to recant and admit mistake and right the wrong, he deserves whatever comes down upon him pursuant to Federal Law. I'm sorry, that's the way I see it. We don't have to agree with the laws, but we have to follow them. Just because some psycho thinks he should be able to slaughter/dismember/consume humans, doesn't mean we should turn the other cheek and allow him to "practice" what he wishes. We all have to abide by the laws if we like them or not, it's as simple as that.

Wildalaska
January 4, 2003, 12:23 AM
All BATF agents are willing accomplices

To what?...Enforcing the laws of this great nation?

444
January 4, 2003, 12:32 AM
Joe, come on now. In order to have an intelligent conversation we can't go off the deep end with the dramatics. For some reason you feel the need to equate this magazine with the most henious crimes known to man. I hope you are more rational than that. Why do we have to go from one extreme to the other ? From lettering on the side of a magazine to murder and canabalism ?

Wildalaska
January 4, 2003, 12:39 AM
Any law restricting possession of any weapon useful to the militia (that's us, all of us) is a blatant violation of the second amendment. Hence, every legislator who votes for such a law, and every LEO who enforces one, should be tried for treason.

Sorry sir, you are wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the constituionality of a ban on high capcity ammunityion feeding devices manufactured after a certain date. No lower court has overturned the law. As such, the law is in fact constitutional. The Courts interpret the constituion, not you.

Your use of the word "treason' brings to mind the extreme anti government radicals who are the enemies of the RKBA.

Furthermore your quoting with approval:

" And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."

is so outraegous as to shock the conscience of all decent people... surely sir you are not coming on this Board advocating, or approving the MURDER of law enforcement agents to satisfy a warped view of the constitution?

You should be ashamed and voluntarily remove your post.

Wildalaska
January 4, 2003, 12:44 AM
Yes, from what I understand, it is the seller's responsibility, under Federal Law, to ONLY sell LEO parts to valid LEOs who can submit proof. That's why I say it is acceptable to make him face the music. IF I am wrong I will admit and apollogize, but only if you can prove me wrong.

You are right, absolutely 100% right...and any dealer worth his salt who has to go through the day to day aggravation of following all the rules would probably agree that this guy, if he has an FFL, must go...

Actions like his makes it harder on the rest of us...

Kahr carrier
January 4, 2003, 12:47 AM
I would send him back the mag priority mail with a signature receipt required about 5.65 in most areas of the US and if he doesnt refund your money I would dispute the charge with Paypal. I would not go to the ATF because you are caught in a catch 22 you did not knowingly intend to purchase an Leo mag ,But you are in Possession which is against the Law.:banghead:

labgrade
January 4, 2003, 12:48 AM
I edited my post on page 2 & am sorry that I made it. Wasn't called for & slamming those who have a different opinion than I isn't worthy of TFL, or THR , and isn't worthy to let lay there. I didn't do it lightly, as I'll usually allow my stupidity stand as a flag to others ..... mea culpa

Hope yall'd accept this in the spirit intended - that of a decent & civil discussion.

I have been wrapped up in something a bit too much for me to handle & still this "enforcing laws of this great nation," wildalaska.

(deep breath)

Yes. I wholeheartedly agree with your last, but have to respectfully disagree with the former.

"These laws" are what is trashing us & pitting us law-abiders against each other.

My emotional outburst wasn't againt the thread's premise, but moreso that we should even be concerned about that this could even be a felony.

A folded/stamped piece of metal, a spring, a piece of plastic.

Without even going into how this illegal material may be used, I would ask how is it that this (once, much) great(er) nation has come to such a state of affairs that we law-abiders must even ask the question .....

Justin Moore
January 4, 2003, 02:51 AM
That some of my TFL/THR bretheren ascribe to Project Exile-type legalese is .... well, expect a severe toungue-lashing any & every time, Bros.

Amen to that.

Bill St. Clair
January 4, 2003, 07:15 AM
Sorry sir, you are wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the constituionality of a ban on high capcity ammunityion feeding devices manufactured after a certain date. No lower court has overturned the law. As such, the law is in fact constitutional. The Courts interpret the constituion, not you.

Unlike most legislation, the constitution was written in very simple language, understandable by mere mortals. The courts have "interpreted" many parts of it out of existence. Some laws are recognizable as unconstitutional by any eighth grader. I agree that they are not "legally" unconsitutional until the courts rule that way, but they are still null and void and it is every patriot's duty to disobey such laws. Most of us, yours truly included, don't have the cojones to do so, but we should.

Your use of the word "treason' brings to mind the extreme anti government radicals who are the enemies of the RKBA.

Furthermore your quoting with approval:

" And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."

is so outraegous as to shock the conscience of all decent people... surely sir you are not coming on this Board advocating, or approving the MURDER of law enforcement agents to satisfy a warped view of the constitution?

I'm not proposing the murder of anyone. Treason is one of the few federal crimes mentioned in the constitution. I am proposing "due process," i.e. arrest the perps, bring them before a grand jury, and, if indicted, give them "speedy trials" by a jury of their peers, and, if the jury finds them guilty, carry out the verdict via "public hangings". Standard legal procedure.

.45FMJoe
January 4, 2003, 08:20 AM
444, I'm just trying to make a point. In America we prosecute all crimes pursuant to Federal Laws. It's unfair to prosecute some and not others because we personally dislike the laws. This is morally wrong and could be construed (sp?) as being illegal. No one is above the law, no one has the power to"look away" just because they want to. That's why I made my analogy.

Tady45
January 4, 2003, 11:56 AM
I WOULD NEVER TURN IN ANYONE TO THE FEDS! Most of the guys on Gunbroker are not dealers in the true sense of the word. They are mostly rather greedy individuals with not the best customer service skills. I am waiting as we speak, for some rounds that I paid for on Dec 17, 2002. Perhaps the guy is a dummy, and does not know what's up legally speaking? I know legal beagles, ingorance is no excuse... In any case, if you are worried, destroy the mag, render it disabled, and keep it as a paper weight. Use this as a lesson learned. The Feds have better things to do, then jack up some guy trying to make a few bucks on a mag. Preban mags command top dollar, sounds like this guy did not even know what he was selling. We just had an illegal alien gallivanting around the White House for the past couple of years. Perhaps are true national security issues could use more FED scrutiny.

Larry

Gary H
January 4, 2003, 12:00 PM
Wow, this thread is still going..

Send an Email to the guy with a URL to this thread.

Frohickey
January 4, 2003, 12:37 PM
This is what I love about TFL/THR. We get into philosophical discussions starting from a consumer transaction on a misrepresented item. It then goes on to what the legal ramifications if this type of transaction were concluded.

I think that Peter Gunn should:
a) keep the magazine, disassemble it, and use the spring/follower/base plate for something else. The mag body with the LE only is now just a mag body, and not a magazine.
b) send the magazine with a note to the seller, giving the seller the option of reversing the charges after 3 days.
c) call up PayPal and reverse the charges immediately. This is the reason you pay PayPal extra. Use it.
d) do a writeup on your experience with the seller, with a very strong recommendation against dealing with the seller in the future. Sanitize the writeup, saying that it was a clear misrepresentation of the product, and non-responsiveness for resolution. Don't need to get into the LE only details. If the seller will do the same thing with a LE-only mag, the seller will do it for something smaller.



As to the following discussions about the unconstitutionality of the laws pertaining to this object, and treason and murder of government officials. (wildalaska/444), I think that treason and public hanging involves due process. Last I looked, government executions had due process, and its not called murder. It might be called killing, but it not murder.




And finally, one final comment.
"We are our own worse enemy."

labgrade
January 4, 2003, 12:57 PM
Good deal. :rolleyes:

4 or 5 pages into a discussion over a possible seller of an illegitimate piece of metal. No bullets, no gun, mind you. A piece of metal.

& here we are in heated discourse.

Those in the "just enforce the laws"-crowd do totally blow my mind.

Do y'all truly believe that somebody should go to jail for a felony rap for the mere possession, or "illegal selling" of a piece of metal based soley that a bunch of *********s who you wouldn't even allow to do your taxes said it should be so?

Regardless of what is said to be law, will you accept it just because someone says it to be so?

.45FMJoe
January 4, 2003, 11:02 PM
Just like you have to blindly accept every other law if you like it or not. We have laws that MUST be obeyed if you want to or if you don't. If you don't like it, you could move elsewhere.

Justin Moore
January 4, 2003, 11:15 PM
Do y'all truly believe that somebody should go to jail for a felony rap for the mere possession, or "illegal selling" of a piece of metal based soley that a bunch of *********s who you wouldn't even allow to do your taxes said it should be so?

lab, its all good man, as long as certain 'contributors' to this thread get to keep their skeet guns and still engage in 'sporting
purposes' ;)

Don't cha know that nobody NEEDS normal capacity mags anyway? What would you NEED those evil devices for? They
just give us law abiding duck hunters a bad name ;)

Hell man, I support the the Right To Keep and Bear Arms that
are Suited to Hunt Ducks/Shoot Clays. If these 'radicals' don't shut up, the gubment might take away all my nice O/U's and
i'll lose my 'right' to blow clay birds out of the air.


-----sarcasm mode OFF----

:scrutiny:

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/sheep.gif

Zander
January 4, 2003, 11:19 PM
...to satisfy a warped view of the constitution? Are you familiar with the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum?

Gun control "laws" , solely a malum prohibitum phenomenon, are an abomination and antithetical to the clear intent of our Constitution.

The sophistry used to dominate and threaten American citizens by the sort of intimidation exercised by the BATF(E) cannot be condoned by anyone who pretends to believe in the sanctity of our inherent Rights.

Justin Moore
January 4, 2003, 11:37 PM
For the 'let's keel haul them' crowd:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/malum_prohibitum.htm

Malum Prohibitum

An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral. See, e.g. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

2nd Amendment
January 5, 2003, 08:46 AM
Just like you have to blindly accept every other law if you like it or not. We have laws that MUST be obeyed if you want to or if you don't. If you don't like it, you could move elsewhere.

Of course we have laws which must be obeyed. Proscriptions against murder, rape, assault, etc. Important things. Leftist-Extremist Gun-Grabber rulings, otoh, are not laws which must be obeyed. They are decrees which must be carefully and wisely circumvented and ignored anytime the option presents itself.

Move elsewhere? Why in the world would I abandon a fine nation to weaklings who follow every dictate of the self-appointed Elites and those Elites themselves? Better to fix things and then let the Sheep follow me.

If you enjoyed reading about "got an illegal (LEO) mag on the internet-what to do?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!