Quote:
Originally Posted by urbancommando
Again, that is your opinion, I never stated it was fact or fiction merely that it COULD be used as a defense should it ever arise. Its a hypothesis nothing more, there is in fact no legal case law either for or against it so therefore you cant say for certain it would not be a viable defense.
|
You're absolutely right that without an actual court case that goes all the way up the appeals ladder, nobody would be able to say definitively what the wise men in robes would say, but I will take a bet any day against your position if a case ever goes to trial and upward.
As a matter of fact, I would wager that if we posit this question to a big crowd of lawyers, which side it would lean toward.
Viable or not, first question you have to ask is if it is reasonable or even logical. Because if we are to accept your position, it would mean any citizen that legally possesses a magazine over ten round capacity can also use it the same way because they have every right to use their legally possessed magazine, the same way a LEO can buy and possess and use the magazine.
The only difference is that a LEO can buy a new one, that's it. There is no other difference in the law with regard to magazines. So now that both parties are legal in possession of said magazine, why would it be different if both inserted said magazine into a BB'ed AW? I would think that there is nothing in the legislative record to state such an intent by anyone when drafting the AW or magazine limit laws.
LEOSA is a totally different matter, that is a way more acceptable and viable argument since it was used successfully, albeit under a different circumstance, to defend Drew Petersen's possession of a SBR in IL.