H.R. 308

[BrianS]

Uhm your friend needs some work on his reading comprehension...the language explicitly makes it legal to possess/transfer a hi-cap magazine if you legally possessed it before the date the law was enacted.

Actually it says it shall not apply to the possession, not the transfer, so transfer would be illegal with this language. But this bill has no chance of passing, so who cares?

[BWT]

Actually it says it shall not apply to the possession, not the transfer, so transfer would be illegal with this language. But this bill has no chance of passing, so who cares?

Thank god someone else sees what I'm saying.

[Gutshot John]

Actually it says it shall not apply to the possession, not the transfer, so transfer would be illegal with this language.

Agreed in principle but then it makes enforcement of the provision even more meaningless. Essentially you'd have to get caught "red-handed" as IG says in order to be prosecuted with transfer. If possession is legal than there is no means of determining whether you had possession before or after the law.

But this bill has no chance of passing, so who cares?

Agreed. This has even less chance of passing than the Republican repeal of HCR.

[Gutshot John]

Because there is no magazine serial number, there is a manufacture date, that's it. Which proves that it was pre-ban in time, but not pre-ban in your possession.

One more time...you don't have to prove that you legally owned the item before hand, the government has to prove that you illegally owned it after. That's what presumption of innocence entails.

The rest of your reasoning is accordingly flawed.

[montanadave]

This has even less chance of passing than the Republican repeal of HCR.

But isn't it heartening to know that our elected officials, regardless of political persuasion, are taking full advantage of the powerful position we have entrusted to them to work tirelessly and diligently in addressing the seemingly intractable issues which threaten our republic?

[Gutshot John]

But isn't it heartening to know that our elected officials, regardless of political persuasion, are taking full advantage of the powerful position we have entrusted to them to work tirelessly and diligently in addressing the seemingly intractable issues which threaten our republic?

The difference of course is that Republicans ran on the platform of repealing HCR, and had to follow through on their campaign promises that resulted in their election. Failure to do so would have resulted in claims of hypocrisy and a "lack of political courage" by the left

The hi-cap magazine ban is pure political gamesmanship, with no political support and simple grandstanding.

[BWT]

One more time...you don't have to prove that you legally owned the item before hand, the government has to prove that you illegally owned it after. That's what presumption of innocence entails.

The rest of your reasoning is accordingly flawed.

Let me ask you this.

Why don't you have to prove you owned it before hand? (ETA: To further expand this, because, it clearly says you can't buy other pre-ban magazines, I'm just curious how you see that, because I can't come to that conclusion)

Like what if I owned something, let's use the example, like an MG before 1934, that I bought before 1934, but never registered it. (ETA: After the law went into effect, as a side note, born in 1987, this is theoretical discussion)

How would I get around the law.

I'm genuinely curious. It was legal before that law, why wouldn't it be now? Why were their amnesties at all?

Enlighten me.

[Iraqgunz]

Completely irrelevant. There was one amnesty for machine guns and that's it. It matters not that you owned it. There is also a registration system in effect and weapons have serial numbers.

Because it isn't registered according to the law and BATFE rules it is contraband.

Let me ask you this.

Why don't you have to prove you owned it before hand? (ETA: To further expand this, because, it clearly says you can't buy other pre-ban magazines, I'm just curious how you see that, because I can't come to that conclusion)

Like what if I owned something, let's use the example, like an MG before 1934, that I bought before 1934, but never registered it. (ETA: After the law went into effect, as a side note, born in 1987, this is theoretical discussion)

How would I get around the law.

I'm genuinely curious. It was legal before that law, why wouldn't it be now? Why were their amnesties at all?

Enlighten me.

[BWT]

Completely irrelevant. There was one amnesty for machine guns and that's it. It matters not that you owned it. There is also a registration system in effect and weapons have serial numbers.

Because it isn't registered according to the law and BATFE rules it is contraband.

You are aware that before GCA serial numbers weren't mandatory by law, right?

Thompsons before NFA didn't have serial numbers on them, unless the manufacture just wanted to put one on there to keep track, there was no legal mandate. So unless you registered it, you were F'ed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

The law also required that all newly-manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and Firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense.

That's why IMHO, this is similar to MG's in this regard. There was no registry before 1934 (which this bill accounts for for magazines starting one up and all magazines made if it passes would be serialized), and there's no way to introduce any MG unless during amnesty (which in this case there will be none).

So again, to re-loop this statement again. Since you can't prove you have a specific magazine, because there is no registry, you can't prove that you had that magazine before the ban, because there is also no provision for a hi-capacity magazine amnesty to register those magazines. It does not matter if it was made before the ban, because you can't prove you had it, unless there is an amnesty. Receipts mean nothing.

That is what I'm saying.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm really not, I really didn't even plan on having an argument or debate, I'm just saying... that's the only logical conclusion.

[Gutshot John]

Let me ask you this.

Why don't you have to prove you owned it before hand? (ETA: To further expand this, because, it clearly says you can't buy other pre-ban magazines, I'm just curious how you see that, because I can't come to that conclusion)

The presumption of innocence is a foundational principle of criminal law that goes back through English Common Law and back to Deuteronomy.

It is established in the Constitution and by our jurisprudence, most notably (115 years ago), Coffin v. United States...

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_v._United_States