ManBearPig
member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2008
- Messages
- 151
Ever since this thing was introduced, I pretty much have given it little regard, because of the chances of it passing are...basically nill. However, someone in another forum brought up an arguement about some techinicality in it that I want to discuss.
For the purposes of this thread, we'll forget about the fact that it makes your property worth zero, since you can not sell or transfer after death your "assault clips" (rolls eyes). That's a whole different discussion on the Constitutionality of that little tidbit.
Here's what I want to talk about:
While this bill does have a grandfather clause, it seems it's only in a techinical since, while the reality of the situation is you can't prove you owned your magazines preban.
In the first AWB, there was a clause in it that said something to the effect of the government would have to prove the magazines you have in your possession were preban or not. That clause is not in this bill; which causes a problem. If you don't have reciepts, you can't prove those magazines you have in your possession were purchased before the ban. However, the reciepts don't matter anyway, let me explain:
Let's say 10 years after the ban you are on the range and a LEO comes over to you and questions you about that 11+ mag you've got in your AK. Here's how the conversation is going to go:
Officer: That magazine is illegal.
You: No sir, it's preban.
Officer: That's what they all say. You're under arrest.
Now you are in court. You show all your reciepts. In fact, we'll go one step further. I have pictures of everything in the house for documentation in case of a fire. So all they have to do is look at the encryption of the picture of my magazines to see that I obviously had them before the ban. So here's how that will go in court:
Your defense lawyer: The defendant has reciepts for his magazines and pictures of them to prove he had them preban.
Procecution: The reciepts show he bought some magazines and the pictues show he had some magazines before the ban, but the magazines don't have serial numbers. He can't prove those magainzes are the magazines currently in his possession.
Judge: Case closed. Let's add up all these magazines you have, 10 years for each one. Looks like you've got yourself a life sentence son.
So you can see how your reciepts and pictures wouldn't mean crap. And that's for the few of you that actually keep receipts and even fewer that have pictures. Without those, you'll get that conviction even faster.
Anyway, that's the arguement someone else at put forward; it's kind of scary. Because it shows that even though they are grandfathered in, they are still basically contraband by default because they don't have serial numbers making it impossible to prove that you really did own them preban.
For the purposes of this thread, we'll forget about the fact that it makes your property worth zero, since you can not sell or transfer after death your "assault clips" (rolls eyes). That's a whole different discussion on the Constitutionality of that little tidbit.
Here's what I want to talk about:
While this bill does have a grandfather clause, it seems it's only in a techinical since, while the reality of the situation is you can't prove you owned your magazines preban.
In the first AWB, there was a clause in it that said something to the effect of the government would have to prove the magazines you have in your possession were preban or not. That clause is not in this bill; which causes a problem. If you don't have reciepts, you can't prove those magazines you have in your possession were purchased before the ban. However, the reciepts don't matter anyway, let me explain:
Let's say 10 years after the ban you are on the range and a LEO comes over to you and questions you about that 11+ mag you've got in your AK. Here's how the conversation is going to go:
Officer: That magazine is illegal.
You: No sir, it's preban.
Officer: That's what they all say. You're under arrest.
Now you are in court. You show all your reciepts. In fact, we'll go one step further. I have pictures of everything in the house for documentation in case of a fire. So all they have to do is look at the encryption of the picture of my magazines to see that I obviously had them before the ban. So here's how that will go in court:
Your defense lawyer: The defendant has reciepts for his magazines and pictures of them to prove he had them preban.
Procecution: The reciepts show he bought some magazines and the pictues show he had some magazines before the ban, but the magazines don't have serial numbers. He can't prove those magainzes are the magazines currently in his possession.
Judge: Case closed. Let's add up all these magazines you have, 10 years for each one. Looks like you've got yourself a life sentence son.
So you can see how your reciepts and pictures wouldn't mean crap. And that's for the few of you that actually keep receipts and even fewer that have pictures. Without those, you'll get that conviction even faster.
Anyway, that's the arguement someone else at put forward; it's kind of scary. Because it shows that even though they are grandfathered in, they are still basically contraband by default because they don't have serial numbers making it impossible to prove that you really did own them preban.
