H.R. 308

[Alric]

Say this goes to court. The prosecution says you have an illegal item. Your attorney then stands up and says "prosecution has no proof, move to dismiss.". Judge looks at the prosecution, then agrees and moves on to the next case on the list.

And with a ton of paperwork, it's done. The prosecution has to prove you broke the law, and doing so would require evidence that you did not possess this magazine before the ban, but you do now.

[BWT]

Say this goes to court. The prosecution says you have an illegal item. Your attorney then stands up and says "prosecution has no proof, move to dismiss.". Judge looks at the prosecution, then agrees and moves on to the next case on the list.

Lordy, I took a few hour break and let this kind of simmer down a bit.

So how do they have no proof if you have a magazine in your possession?

[Gutshot John]

So how do they have no proof if you have a magazine in your possession?

I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand. It's not just possession of a magazine. They have to prove that the magazine is illegal.

Per the plain language of the bill that you provided, one is allowed to possess a high-capacity magazine manufactured/transferred before the hypothetical ban.

They have the burden to prove that the magazine in the accused possession was a) manufactured after the ban or b) that it was transferred to the accused after the ban.

If they cannot prove either of those two points than they have not met the burden of proof.

All of this presumes that the legal system would have nothing better to do than expending limited resources on harassing law-abiding citizens.

[montanadave]

After carefully considering the last page of posts, might I suggest renaming this thread "How to Teach a Pig to Whistle."

[Iraqgunz]

Well apparently this thing is too complex. So I am locking it.