PDA

View Full Version : HR308 High Capacity Magazine Ban


Verl Stanford
03-23-2011, 4:48 PM
If by chance HR308, the Federal High Capacity Magazine Ban, does pass the House and Senate and become law, how will current owners of high capacity magazines prove ownership prior to enactment of the law? The current issue of The American Rifleman says that it will be the responsibility of the owners of the magazines to prove that the magazines were purchased prior to HR308 becoming law. So, this implies that receipts for magazines that were purchased decades ago may have to be produced. Who has kept receipts for magazines that were purchased 30 years ago? Were receipts even obtained since these were legal to own back then. How does California handle this?

InGrAM
03-23-2011, 4:53 PM
You cant. Thats the point. Liberalism at its best

wildhawker
03-23-2011, 5:15 PM
If by chance HR308, the Federal High Capacity Magazine Ban, does pass the House and Senate and become law, how will current owners of high capacity magazines prove ownership prior to enactment of the law? The current issue of The American Rifleman says that it will be the responsibility of the owners of the magazines to prove that the magazines were purchased prior to HR308 becoming law. So, this implies that receipts for magazines that were purchased decades ago may have to be produced. Who has kept receipts for magazines that were purchased 30 years ago? Were receipts even obtained since these were legal to own back then. How does California handle this?

California does not prohibit the possession of large-capacity magazines; the answer is "it doesn't [handle it]".

Note that the bill, in its current form (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-308), does not prohibit all possession per se:

(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to the possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed within the United States on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

It's also exposed to a 14A Equal Protection challenge in e.g. the following (at least here in the Ninth Circuit):

(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon that retirement; or

pointedstick
03-23-2011, 5:34 PM
No chance of passing. The House is super pro-gun at the moment.

Mike61982
03-23-2011, 8:59 PM
If this does pass, and I highly doubt it because its an election year. If the dens do pass Obama for sure wont be president after the next election...

safewaysecurity
03-23-2011, 9:03 PM
Won't pass

tonelar
03-23-2011, 9:08 PM
The Dems have tried to resurrect one form or other of the federal ban since 2005. They have an even slimmer chance now than ever.

desertdweller
03-23-2011, 9:08 PM
Buy a receipt book and put some stamps in it like you bought them at a gun show. Much of the stuff I've bought over the years at a show isn't anything more complicated than that.

You think some traveling yahoo from Texas, Pennsylvania, etc. is going to testify for the prosecution that you DIDN'T buy it on that date?

This is your I-DONT-HAVE-ANYTHING-ELSE-TO-DO politician justifying his/her job. It's pathetic really.

wildhawker
03-23-2011, 9:40 PM
Horrible advice. Falsifying records and perjury is not your best defense.

-Brandon

Buy a receipt book and put some stamps in it like you bought them at a gun show. Much of the stuff I've bought over the years at a show isn't anything more complicated than that.

You think some traveling yahoo from Texas, Pennsylvania, etc. is going to testify for the prosecution that you DIDN'T buy it on that date?

This is your I-DONT-HAVE-ANYTHING-ELSE-TO-DO politician justifying his/her job. It's pathetic really.

G17GUY
03-23-2011, 10:17 PM
Buy a receipt book and put some stamps in it like you bought them at a gun show. Much of the stuff I've bought over the years at a show isn't anything more complicated than that.

You think some traveling yahoo from Texas, Pennsylvania, etc. is going to testify for the prosecution that you DIDN'T buy it on that date?

This is your I-DONT-HAVE-ANYTHING-ELSE-TO-DO politician justifying his/her job. It's pathetic really.

:ban:

Connor P Price
03-23-2011, 10:22 PM
If it passes (it wont) then I'm guessing Gura would be suing over it. In Heller it was held that its unconstitutional to ban something in common use by the American public for lawful self defense. Most firearms used for lawful self defense are designed to use greater than 10 round magazines. Using that common use test, banning the use of so many legally owned and used magazines wont pass constitutional muster.

But its much ado about nothing, because its not going to pass.

anthonyca
03-23-2011, 11:05 PM
The national political climate is not the same as the Cali climate. Please, o please let this get far and loose in an election year. We may be able to boot some more congress people out. At the least we will raise more money for the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation and the rest.

Spetsnazos
03-23-2011, 11:07 PM
Forging documents is not something I would recommend people...wtf bro?

Alan Block
03-24-2011, 11:28 AM
on top of todays newspaper then print it, date stamp the back and have it notarized. That might work.

mstlaurent
03-24-2011, 11:49 AM
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution. If possession is legal, they have to prove that you obtained them illegally, or they have no case.