View Single Post
Old May 14, 2013, 10:08 AM   #21
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I'm a bit confused by the "unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices" charge. Either the device is illegal or it's not. A charge for "loading a feeding device above lawful limits" might make more sense.
Although I agree that it sounds odd, if one examines the wording of the law, IMHO the charge is technically correct. From the definitions...
Quote:
"Large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition, or (b) contains more than seven rounds of ammunition...
(emphasis mine)

IOW the mere fact that a magazine contains more than 7rds makes it a LCAFD. It's goofy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
That said, prior to Emerson, we had a long history of poorly-mounted 2A defenses on the part of very unsympathetic plaintiffs.
Just as a footnote, the U.S. v. Miller case was arguably a textbook example of this.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02078 seconds with 8 queries