ECU Pirates
.308 Win
I am a former federal officer. I was so top secret even your trooper "friend" could not look me up. I will be ok thanks for the concern though.
Fake fed, he WAS ARRESTED, They don't need consent !
still waiting for your bona fidas
Yea, I hear you, that guy who got executed for saying "I can't feed my family" in North Korea should have known he was violating a "settled law". Anyone who has any sympathy for him is a sucker tooUnlike many on this site, I don't live in lala land.
You think the NYSP is bad ? Try dealing with the cops in Nam' or Thailand.
As we used to tell passengers: "Sit down, shut up and don't smoke !"
Why is it so hard to comprehend that he was breaking a settled law ?
You want to riot, protest, march etc ..... feel free. You will be further marginalized in a state where a referendum would see ALL guns banned.
F-ing dummies !
As A Jew I would appreciate you keeping my people out of this thread. Carry on.Yup shut up and let fools spread lies. Worked well for the Jews in Germany !
ALL of the SAFE Act is complete Bullshit.
As A Jew I would appreciate you keeping my people out of this thread. Carry on.
Agreed.
But a quick point of order...
10 rounds was the law prior to the SAFE Act, and it was an arrestable offense then. This is NOT a SAFE Act case.
Yep, I'll give that to you, but back then, it was not a felony. (I don't think)
I think there were such things as "pre ban" mags back then too...Yep, I'll give that to you, but back then, it was not a felony. (I don't think)
My former top secret SAP, SCI federal officer post was a joke.... or was it?+10 GOPerfect. As with most on the internet there is no shortage of chest beaters hiding in their closets. At least two fake Feds have weighed in, expecting to hear from the Klingons soon !
Shit, it seems so long ago.I think there were such things as "pre ban" mags back then too...
Charged with Penal law 265.02How is he having felony charges?
S 265.37 Unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition
feeding device where such device contains more than seven rounds of
ammunition.
If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is
possessed within the home of the possessor, the person so possessing the
device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a violation and subject
to a fine of two hundred dollars, and for each subsequent offense, be
guilty of a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred
dollars and a term of up to three months imprisonment.
If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is
possessed in any location other than the home of the possessor, the
person so possessing the device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of
a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars and a
term of up to six months imprisonment, and for each subsequent offense,
be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
My former top secret SAP, SCI federal officer post was a joke.... or was it?
Yea. I saw that. But the law is struck and they haven't updated it.Sub-sectio 8 I believe.
Yea. I saw that. But the law is struck and they haven't updated it.
If I were the lawyer, I would argue that the law has to be current to enforce.No, not really, what was struck down was the seven round limit. The less than eleven is still in effect.
I my be wrong, no law degree. It is how I read it.