Assault Rifles Reported at Spenceville Range

[Citadelgrad87]

Everything is illegal unless it's not, so in your world police have RS to check anything at any time.

You didn't make any sense before, but you make even less now.

Wrong. AWs are illegal because a statue says they are illegal. If you registered the aw, its excepted from that illegal status.

Far different than it's illegal unless it's not, and other tripe.

[Mirac]

This thread is getting as much action as Spenceville on a Saturday...
Glad I got the Tree for shade.

[ijustdontknow]

Yes there are.

OK, I'm not going to argue with you.

Let me clarify. Add this to the end of my comment: ",except for those who like being soaked with the mist of urine."

I forgot the very important, different strokes rule.

[IVC]

Courts DONT disagree with me, because I didn't adopt your lame slippery slope assertion. I asked for a case cite, you respond vaguely that courts disagree.

This is the third time I'm giving you a cite. The case is US v. NATHANIEL BLACK in CA-4.

Black was convicted and got 15 years at district level, followed by CA-4 vacating his sentence.

In his case he was next to an open carrier, a known drug dealer and a bunch of shady characters, he was a felon in possession of a concealed gun that was discovered during his attempted fleeing from the police. How's that for "suspicious?"

Here is what the court said on the second of two issues it addressed:

You can claim all you want that shooting at a public range in the full view of public, many of whom are likely LEO-s, is going to create a "reasonable suspicion" that a configuration that is NOT ILLEGAL warrants a detention. Just look at how shady the situation I cite was, yet the court said that you're wrong.

[IVC]

AWs are illegal because a statue says they are illegal.

AWs are NOT illegal - the statute clearly separates which ones are LEGAL and which ones are ILLEGAL. The statute CREATES classification into legal and illegal AWs, therefore statute GUARANTEES that some AWs are legal.

You can keep repeating that AWs are illegal, but it won't make it so. I'll keep pointing out the obvious, i.e., that the statute DEFINES which AWs are LEGAL, therefore claiming that "AWs are illegal" is pure nonsense.

If legislators wanted to make AWs illegal, they would have removed from the statute everything behind "EXCEPT." They could have also provided additional exceptions for *affirmative defense* against possession of AWs, but they didn't. Instead, they chose to DEFINE which AWs are legal and which are not.

[tankton]

I know some of you guys were hoping for a smack down, but I just do t have the energy to go up against another fence post.

AWs are ILLEGAL. That's the status quo, NOT legal. Can't make, sell, buy, posses.

That's the scheme.

There is a narrow exception to that illegality. If the owner properly registered the aw before the deadline, it's a RAW.

So, absent the narrow exception, it's illegal. Meet the exception, legal.

The legislature is in charge of how it writes the laws. They could have said AWs are legal, unless they aren't registered, but they didn't.

You've got it backwards, you're simply wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, you are incorrect.

AWs are NOT illegal - the statute clearly separates which ones are LEGAL and which ones are ILLEGAL. The statute CREATES classification into legal and illegal AWs, therefore statute GUARANTEES that some AWs are legal.

You can keep repeating that AWs are illegal, but it won't make it so. I'll keep pointing out the obvious, i.e., that the statute DEFINES which AWs are LEGAL, therefore claiming that "AWs are illegal" is pure nonsense.

If legislators wanted to make AWs illegal, they would have removed from the statute everything behind "EXCEPT." They could have also provided additional exceptions for *affirmative defense* against possession of AWs, but they didn't. Instead, they chose to DEFINE which AWs are legal and which are not.

You two just used the exact same argument for (at least) the past two pages.

[Kowan]

I sure wouldn't waste my time listing witnesses if a crime was committed against me and some of these posters saw it happen.
Not only would their manhood be questioned, their 3 rd grade class mates would call them up and tell them they are snitches.

[Citadelgrad87]

This is the third time I'm giving you a cite. The case is US v. NATHANIEL BLACK in CA-4.

Black was convicted and got 15 years at district level, followed by CA-4 vacating his sentence.

In his case he was next to an open carrier, a known drug dealer and a bunch of shady characters, he was a felon in possession of a concealed gun that was discovered during his attempted fleeing from the police. How's that for "suspicious?"

Here is what the court said on the second of two issues it addressed:

You can claim all you want that shooting at a public range in the full view of public, many of whom are likely LEO-s, is going to create a "reasonable suspicion" that a configuration that is NOT ILLEGAL warrants a detention. Just look at how shady the situation I cite was, yet the court said that you're wrong.

It's not the third time. You have YET TO POST a case that agrees with you. Do t give me your take on something else that you subjectively think is slippery, I want to see a case where a court agrees with you that an illegal AW which might be excepted from the law means a cop can't run the serial to see if it's registered.

That's what I asked for, stop acting like I won't read the other case. The other case is irrelevant.

The configuration is most definitely illegal unless it's registered. Your irrational decision to say it's legal notwithstanding, that's not how it works.
Show me a case or yield,

[Citadelgrad87]

AWs are NOT illegal - the statute clearly separates which ones are LEGAL and which ones are ILLEGAL. The statute CREATES classification into legal and illegal AWs, therefore statute GUARANTEES that some AWs are legal.

You can keep repeating that AWs are illegal, but it won't make it so. I'll keep pointing out the obvious, i.e., that the statute DEFINES which AWs are LEGAL, therefore claiming that "AWs are illegal" is pure nonsense.

If legislators wanted to make AWs illegal, they would have removed from the statute everything behind "EXCEPT." They could have also provided additional exceptions for *affirmative defense* against possession of AWs, but they didn't. Instead, they chose to DEFINE which AWs are legal and which are not.

I read statues for a living. They are illegal, made illegal by that statute. The statute excepts some from the scheme, but the statute is restrictive in the exception, not expansive.

If the legislature had intended what you keep repeating like a mental patient, they would have said AWs are legal, except those which are not registered. There are statutes like that. This isn't one of them. Unless excepted, and it's a narrow exception with a 23 year old closed registration scheme, the weapons are illegal. Consider this, every single aw that was made, configured, or brought into California since the registration closed is illegal

The nonsense is you blathering about this as if you know what you're talking about.

I've been called to task for pointing out that I'm an attorney. I do this for a living. You are wrong in your interpretation of this statute, it's effect, and in claiming the cops can never catch anyone because they aren't allowed to check a suspicious weapon because it's not blatantly illegal without running the number.

Based on your incorrect logic, no one could ever be busted for a sawed off shotgun, because unless you measure it, you can't tell how short it is, so, well, too bad.

[roostersgt]

My son is 20 and has several LCM thanks to his grandfather who was a FFL and for Christmas 1999 gifted him a large box filled with a variety of mags. Dad did this for all of his children and grandchildren.

This is why he has 15 round mags for his G19. He even has a couple of the evil 33 round mags.

And you really think people believe this crap?? His grand dad gifted him numerous and various magazines for a freaking 4 year old??!! Really!!! He, as a 4 year old owned, or was anticipating buying a Glock 19, and other hand guns capanble of high cap magazines, and his grand dad purchased them 15 years before hand????

It's like trying to sell us on the Easterbunny, or Santa Claus predicting what their grand children would like in the future. Please stop assuming people are that stupid and try selling it to the authorities when the time comes. Good luck!

[Spyder]

IVC. You are so ridiculously, unfathomably, hilariously flat out simply wrong, about how the law works. I can't tell if you're purposefully saying idiotic things to bait people, or if you truly believe the blatantly false things you're saying. Either way, it's been fun.

[IVC]

If the legislature had intended what you keep repeating like a mental patient, they would have said AWs are legal, except those which are not registered.

The wording for AW is no different than wording for VC 12500: "V C Section 12500 Unlawful to Drive Unless Licensed"

Can I conclude that the police can look at any driver and assume that he is doing something unlawful because the statute explicitly says that "it is unlawful to drive," followed by an EXCEPTION "unless licensed?"

Per you logic, shouldn't have legislators said "it is lawful to drive except when without license?"

I've been called to task for pointing out that I'm an attorney. I do this for a living. You are wrong in your interpretation of this statute, it's effect, and in claiming the cops can never catch anyone because they aren't allowed to check a suspicious weapon because it's not blatantly illegal without running the number.

That's what half of attorneys say just until the moment that the judge comes back with an opinion. Remember, in our adversary system there is always a losing side and they are an attorney too.

[Wes C Addle]

Getting a blow job depending on when and where for those of us who venture beyond the bounds of the Great State of Kalifornia.

getting a blow job is a felony?

[CASEC]

getting a blow job is a felony?

In GA but I don't think it's the only state. It's classified as sodemy. In AL you can't sell vibrators of the law hasn't changed. I just visited GA. We can get beer on Sunday now so things change slowly.

[IVC]

And you really think people believe this crap??

How would a DA establish violation of large capacity magazine laws without the defendant taking the stand? Saying "I don't believe it?" There is also a statute of limitations.

The large capacity magazine laws are mostly unenforceable except in two cases: (1) when defendants incriminate themselves, and (2) when defendants are caught in the act (e.g., at Nevada border.) That's why most jurisdictions deal with it through nuisance ordinances - confiscate, use as a leverage in pleading down.