Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:43 PM
Big bug Big bug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 705
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The guy has been convicted of two misdemeanor DUIs in the last 7 years and his brother is a parolee. Doesn't mean anything beyond adding some color to why the police may have been interested--the family is likely known to local LE as miscreants.
His rap sheet is almost as good as Floyds he might get a mural yet
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:44 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9Cal_OC View Post
Well if his brother is a parolee, likely they don’t need it.
Only assuming they share a residence? They have free reign to root through a parolee's possessions in his home?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:48 PM
seal20's Avatar
seal20 seal20 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: On the Mountain
Posts: 3,080
iTrader: 200 / 100%
Default

Let me speculate... Since that's how we do...

His parolee bro got caught with a mag, he rolled on his bro saying "my brother gave it to me".... That's all....

Now, here we are.

Last edited by seal20; 06-10-2020 at 9:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:52 PM
stormvet's Avatar
stormvet stormvet is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amongst the Ocotillos
Posts: 6,882
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Not good, unless he wins then it’s very good.
__________________
Im a warmonger baby, I got blood in my eyes and I'm looking at you.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:52 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohsmily View Post
What evidence is the prosecutor going to use to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this person bought, imported, or manufactured the magazine(s) unlawfully? There has to be unanimity on the exact theory for a finding of guilt. Possession isn't a crime. F'ing ****bird prostituter, I mean prosecutor.
Possession is a crime. Please refer to Penal Code section 32310(c).

It's important to note that there is a federal court order in effect that currently prohibits prosecution for this crime, but there is nothing in the court order that has invalidated PC 32310(c), or that has made possession "legal".
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:57 PM
Blownmotor's Avatar
Blownmotor Blownmotor is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Mateo County
Posts: 1,334
iTrader: 25 / 96%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Possession is a crime. Please refer to Penal Code section 32310(c).

It's important to note that there is a federal court order in effect that currently prohibits prosecution for this crime, but there is nothing in the court order that has invalidated PC 32310(c), or that has made possession "legal".
So why are they even bothering to move forward with it?
__________________
History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-10-2020, 9:59 PM
ohsmily ohsmily is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: El Dorado Hills (Sac area)
Posts: 8,745
iTrader: 36 / 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Possession is a crime. Please refer to Penal Code section 32310(c).

It's important to note that there is a federal court order in effect that currently prohibits prosecution for this crime, but there is nothing in the court order that has invalidated PC 32310(c), or that has made possession "legal".
Why is it important to note that for the purpose of this discussion unless and until the injunction is vacated? I was simplifying for everyone. Dillhole cops up here sometimes arrest on that and the prosecutors in this part of the state chastise them. 32310(c) has never been enforceable/prosecutable as it was enjoined prior to its effect (by a day or two as I recall). Thank you for the ultra precision, though.
__________________
Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/

Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.

Last edited by ohsmily; 06-10-2020 at 10:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:01 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blownmotor View Post
So why are they even bothering to move forward with it?
From what I've read, the prosecution is moving forward with PC 32310(a). The federal court order applies differently to that section. It only bars prosecution of folks who manufactured, or acquired, their large-capacity magazines during "Freedom Week."
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:09 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 9,109
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohsmily View Post
Why is it important to note that unless and until the injunction is vacated? I was simplifying for everyone. Dillhole cops up here sometimes arrest on that and the prosecutors in this part of the state chastise them. 32310(c) has never been enforceable/prosecutable as it was enjoined prior to its effect (by a day or two as I recall). Thank you for the ultra precision, though.
Ohsmily,

You're most welcome, but I think you answered your own question "why is it important to note that..."?

It's important because you made false statement that could get a Calgunner in trouble. I'm hopeful that we'll get a final decision that PC 32310 is unconstitutional, and then Marbury v Madison can invalidate it. But it can go the other way also. If it does, the state can go back and charge folks for simple possession during the time the injunction was in effect (up to the SOL). I'll grant that it's unlikely the state would do so, but it is possible.

When speaking of legal stuff, it's kinda important to speak with "ultra precision", or to clearly state that you're speaking in general terms.
__________________
If you build a man a fire, you'll keep him warm for the evening. If you set a man on fire, you'll keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:15 PM
ohsmily ohsmily is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: El Dorado Hills (Sac area)
Posts: 8,745
iTrader: 36 / 97%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
Ohsmily,

You're most welcome, but I think you answered your own question "why is it important to note that..."?

It's important because you made false statement that could get a Calgunner in trouble. I'm hopeful that we'll get a final decision that PC 32310 is unconstitutional, and then Marbury v Madison can invalidate it. But it can go the other way also. If it does, the state can go back and charge folks for simple possession during the time the injunction was in effect (up to the SOL). I'll grant that it's unlikely the state would do so, but it is possible.

When speaking of legal stuff, it's kinda important to speak with "ultra precision", or to clearly state that you're speaking in general terms.
You do you. My clients are well taken care of.

Also, no successful prosecutions (or even attempts) statewide for PC 32310(c) that I'm aware of.

We're all closely watching Duncan v. Becerra...we'll see.
__________________
Expert firearms attorney: https://www.rwslaw.com/team/adam-j-richards/

Check out https://www.firearmsunknown.com/. Support a good calgunner local to San Diego.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:18 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

And cops wonder why people are wanting them defunded.... It's **** like this. No crime, just abuse of power.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:18 PM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Outside my Southern Comfort Zone
Posts: 23,178
iTrader: 223 / 100%
Default

This is very troubling...
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:24 PM
deckhandmike's Avatar
deckhandmike deckhandmike is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Morro Bay
Posts: 8,168
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

A felony charge!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:26 PM
Blamb Blamb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 60
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Maybe it has to do with him being a parole....maybe
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:28 PM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 6,407
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blamb View Post
Maybe it has to do with him being a parole....maybe
His brother was the parolee
__________________
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." ----Sen. Barry Goldwater

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ----Benjamin Franklin

NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:32 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,385
iTrader: 73 / 100%
Default

I loved Freedom Week. My ammo stash didn't but it sure makes range time more fun!
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:40 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
✰ Sometimes I Fly Armed
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 15,135
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABC30
Defense attorney Eric Schweitzer also argues that Yang doesn't need to prove when he purchased the magazine.

"The people of the state of California have the burden of proof. If they're going to charge you with committing a crime, I think it's incumbent on them to prove that it happened some other time other than Freedom Week," said Schweitzer.

On Wednesday, Schweitzer requested the case against his client be dismissed.
Sounds like his attorney knows what's up. Let's see how this shakes out.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:41 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blamb View Post
Maybe it has to do with him being a parole....maybe

Quote:
During the search, they found a 15-round gun magazine, considered a large capacity magazine in California, in the bedroom of Pheng Yang, the parolee's brother.
Unless the DA can PROVE that Mr Yang acquired the mags illegally. Which would exclude Freedom Week mags. Makes me wonder why he is bothering. Unless he just doesn't care if he looks like a damn fool for "virtue signalling".
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:48 PM
S.A.'s Avatar
S.A. S.A. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,039
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Tag
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-10-2020, 10:57 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I'm fairly confident this will set some great precedent for you guys in CA. It's pretty clear that acquiring those magazines during the injunction wasn't illegal. They charged him with import/manufacturing, which is a felony. Simple possession of a high capacity magazine is not. PC 32310(c) is pretty clear that simple possession is an infraction or misdemeanor.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-10-2020, 11:18 PM
Ishooter's Avatar
Ishooter Ishooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 835
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I read somewhere that OCSD doesn't care about standard capacity mags 10+. They even allow them on ccw handguns. What's wrong with Tulare county?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-11-2020, 3:29 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The guy has been convicted of two misdemeanor DUIs in the last 7 years and his brother is a parolee. Doesn't mean anything beyond adding some color to why the police may have been interested--the family is likely known to local LE as miscreants.
Defamation is “doesn’t mean anything beyond adding some color”? In VCM290041, he pleaded no contest to VC23152(b) and VC14601.5(a). In VCM369521, he was charged with VC23152, but pleaded guilty to VC23247(e), VC12500(a), and VC23123(a). So no, not convicted of two misdemeanor DUIs in the last seven years.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-11-2020, 5:04 AM
Califpatriot Califpatriot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: South OC
Posts: 2,442
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tenemae View Post
Only assuming they share a residence? They have free reign to root through a parolee's possessions in his home?
Yes to both
__________________
In case it wasn't obvious, nothing I write here should be interpreted as legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:03 AM
SactoDoug's Avatar
SactoDoug SactoDoug is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,166
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This means to me that if anyone is on parole or probation in the house, they need to be kicked out since it removes constitutional protections from everyone else in the house.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:17 AM
BBot12 BBot12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 365
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I wonder if the defense could tag up with Michel & Associates on this one? Seems like a logical thing to do


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:25 AM
Mounainfury's Avatar
Mounainfury Mounainfury is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: RivCo
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Tag
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:38 AM
Mayor McRifle's Avatar
Mayor McRifle Mayor McRifle is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Central Valley
Posts: 7,647
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bumslie View Post
Worth paying attention to
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
The guy has been convicted of at least one misdemeanor DUI and at least one other misdemeanor in the last 7 years and his brother is a parolee. Doesn't mean anything beyond adding some color to why the police may have been interested--the family is likely known to local LE as miscreants.
There is definitely more to this than meets the eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
This is going to be a good case to see how the judge rules as to the burden of proof.
The state’s burden is well-established. If the judge rules incorrectly, it will be corrected on appeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohsmily View Post
You do you. My clients are well taken care of.
Based on what I’ve read, I believe this is true. Don’t let the jailhouse lawyers here get to you.
__________________
Anchors Aweigh

Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:49 AM
August August is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In a rabbit hole down by the river
Posts: 2,225
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is crazy coming from Tulare Co. The Sheriff is 110% pro 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-11-2020, 6:53 AM
GoatLovin GoatLovin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rancho Cordova, CA
Posts: 709
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Felony charge for a 15 round magazine.

**** California. **** the pieces of **** that charged him with this and enforce this commie law.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-11-2020, 7:36 AM
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ's Avatar
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 989
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

I posted this already in this thread, but I might as well post it here in this thread.

Information is available on the Tulare County Superior Court website. He was arrested January 22, 2020, and posted $35,000 bond, which is the bail schedule amount for PC32310 in Tulare County. The Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint on March 3, 2020 alleging one count of Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (a), large-capacity magazine activity. A demurrer was filed on May 26, 2020. I assume the demurrer was based on Judge Benitez's injunction. Demurrer was denied on June 8, 2010. A preliminary hearing was heard June 10, 2020 and the defendant was held to answer on the count of acquiring a large-capacity magazine. Arraignment on the information is June 25, 2020.

To add some context, the Tulare County Sheriff had a press release back in January about the arrest January which said the following:
Quote:
Recently, the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office, with help from The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, The Tulare County Probation Office and Investigators from the Tulare County DA's Office, conducted multiple Parole, Probation and Sexual Registrants compliance checks throughout the communities of Goshen and Ivanhoe.

The purpose is to confirm all those checked are in compliance with their terms of Parole, Probation and Sex Offender registration status.

During the operation, six men were arrested for violations and fresh charges. Detectives also found a stolen vehicle, 10 pounds of marijuana, more than $10,000 cash and three guns.

As a result of the compliance checks, Detectives arrested 34-year-old Danny Esquibel, 61-year-old Hector Martinez, 39-year-old Alfredo Galvan, 35-year-old Jesus Farias-Cruz, 36-year-old Nicholas Freeman, 30-year-old Smith Yang and 26-year-old Pheng Yang.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-11-2020, 7:42 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Hmmm....I wonder if the DA could be held in contempt of Benitez's order in federal court saying to the effect that mags obtained during freedom week were perfectly legal?

Perhaps an email to the honorable judge? I wonder if his email address list here would suffice? https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges...o.aspx?portal=

efile_benitez@casd.uscourts.gov

.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-11-2020, 7:48 AM
NATEWA NATEWA is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,959
iTrader: 83 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
And cops wonder why people are wanting them defunded.... It's **** like this. No crime, just abuse of power.
I’m sure there are specifics to this case that are not being released. The “cops” don’t prosecute, they arrest or cite.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-11-2020, 7:49 AM
Dirk Tungsten's Avatar
Dirk Tungsten Dirk Tungsten is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: the basement
Posts: 1,965
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

tag for later reading
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-11-2020, 7:51 AM
NATEWA NATEWA is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,959
iTrader: 83 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ View Post
I posted this already in this thread, but I might as well post it here in this thread.

Information is available on the Tulare County Superior Court website. He was arrested January 22, 2020, and posted $35,000 bond, which is the bail schedule amount for PC32310 in Tulare County. The Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint on March 3, 2020 alleging one count of Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (a), large-capacity magazine activity. A demurrer was filed on May 26, 2020. I assume the demurrer was based on Judge Benitez's injunction. Demurrer was denied on June 8, 2010. A preliminary hearing was heard June 10, 2020 and the defendant was held to answer on the count of acquiring a large-capacity magazine. Arraignment on the information is June 25, 2020.

To add some context, the Tulare County Sheriff had a press release back in January about the arrest January which said the following:

Thanks for the info.

32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-11-2020, 7:53 AM
PaperTarget's Avatar
PaperTarget PaperTarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 786
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Wild thought. Defendant could have lied as to when he obtained them. Crazy idea. And the prosecution may have evidence that proves that he lied.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-11-2020, 8:02 AM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Not in California
Posts: 3,098
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

The DA is probably taking the position that the magazine was obtained before or after freedom week and therefore the injunction does not apply. But without knowing what evidence the prosecutor has I can’t comment on the merit of that position.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-11-2020, 8:06 AM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 7,364
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Well this may or may not suck.. that said, glade I retained all my ten rd or less, & neutered ones.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-11-2020, 8:11 AM
choprzrul's Avatar
choprzrul choprzrul is offline
Calguns Addict
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Coast, CA
Posts: 6,506
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp1 View Post
The DA is probably taking the position that the magazine was obtained before or after freedom week and therefore the injunction does not apply. But without knowing what evidence the prosecutor has I can’t comment on the merit of that position.
I would wonder how the DA intends to prove the magazine was obtained at a time before or after freedom week?

Even if it were a 'parts kit' prior to freedom week, it could have been assembled during that time and be perfectly legal.

I hope the defendant has good council and doesn't have to plea out of this. Further, I hope that DA is found in contempt...

.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-11-2020, 8:21 AM
BBot12 BBot12 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 365
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Let’s all hope he’s telling the truth and maybe gets some good representation from CRPA so that they intend to fight this one all the way


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-11-2020, 8:48 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by choprzrul View Post
I would wonder how the DA intends to prove the magazine was obtained at a time before or after freedom week?
Time stamp on Magpuls. Never buy Magpul. They caved to Colorado.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:10 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy