Quote:
|
Can you imagine a more "ambiguous" list? We can certainly understand that all this was intended to aid in the prosecution of someone who is a danger to society however we all know that when it gets to court the letter of the law is fought over, however unfortunate
|
Look I am not defending the case. But I am giving you factual background and the precise law.
And if you know DC gun law ( and I know it intimately) you know it is all simply cribbed by two people in the DC council's judiciary committee staff from other laws. So if you see it in DC law it likely to exist elsewhere. In this ammo case ; very close to Massachusetts law. In DC it is also a slightly modified holdover law from when all new firearms were prohibited (late 70s to 2008)
You are not allowed to have primers or casings or projectiles without having undergone the registered weapons holders requirements. One of the requirements is to take a test on DC's gun laws (along with an online firearms familiarity/safety course, and background check done in addition to the FFL's).
You have quoted me a couple times.
Yes I agree the box of modern, fully functional, compete, 40 cal ammo was rightfully excluded from the case. But that doesn't mean that the fact of him having it there isn't for you and I to consider when thinking about this guy's judgment. Or the fact that when primary evidence is excluded it is common to prosecute on lesser offenses.
There are many cases in the US where prosecution on lesser offenses, technical offices is more rigorous, when the worse offense is excluded on evidentiary rules. I am not opposing or defending that practice, but simply noting it is something that does occur more than rarely.
Without supporting the particular law or practice, we should acknowledge that if you are found with drugs in your car and they get exclude for bad warrant would you really be surprised at a rigorous than normal prosecution of driving under the influence?
This prosecution is an abuse for other reasons. the entire body of ammo law, and certainly any prosecution in DC should be about 1) an aggravating circumstance in a primary offence of having an illegal firearm, ie a bad guy with a gun is prosecuted, a bad guy with a gun and ammo is prosecuted more.; b) people seeking to distribute ammo to persons unlicensed.
Again the law is bad, the prosecution is an abuse, I would give to this guy's defense fund -- but I was adding facts Emily Miller has left out of her reporting.