Woman charged with illegal SBR over stock-less 10/22

[Glenn B]

I'll never understand why we argue over legit perps when it comes to gun laws. Our point should always be "these are the people you should go after!" Defending them just makes pro-gun people look like loons.

I get the points made, I really do. But it's the optics. We are in a 24/7 real fight for our rights and we expend energy on legit perps. Wtf?

It is to defend the rights of the innocent because when possibly trumped up charges fly against a dirtbag then what is to stop them from doing likewise against an innocent person. Of what was she legitimately a perpetrator. She was seen with a gun that maybe the police figured was illegal as a short barrel rifle or so it seems possible and that led to a further search. If the rifle is found not to have been illegal, and it is later held the police should have known so, on what PC is the rest of any search that took place based? I am not saying these charges are bogus or that she is some sort of a saint. What I am saying is it does appear, to the uninformed on the intricacies of CA law, as if there possibly could be some credence to that idea - a better knowledge of CA law might help to determine it one way or the other.

Of course, just having the rifle in CA might have been offense enough to arrest her and thus to search further. In such a case, I would ask you to consider: Is CA law in that regard Constitutional? Does CA law uphold or violate our rights under the 2nd? In addition, would the DA have been right to have charged her with the SBR charge or was that just a charge added by a DA hopeful of getting an extra feather in his or her cap in a state where those charged with gun crimes seem to almost always be the losers at trial! Think about it this way, if you were seen at a range, in CA, with a take down rifle such as the Henry U.S. Survival AR-7 rifle and you removed the stock to begin to break down the rifle to store the other parts within the stock, could you be arrested for possessing a SBR? If you were an law abiding conservative who was also an outspoken opponent of CA gun control laws, who was on the shit list of the DA or the police because of very outspoken criticism of them and because of your political leanings and views on the RKBA, would that be a possibility? Then, would it also be a possibility you would be charged and convicted! Once such a law in constructed by anti-gun zealots to support anti-gun hysteria and once an arrest is made followed by charges against even a dirtbag - and then a conviction or guilty plea follows - it would be easy for it to happen to anyone - even a law abiding citizen. The same stands for when it happens with trumped up charges.

 

[Glenn B]

One thing to say...

California!

That's all there is to know...

Please bear no malice toward me for taking the liberty of correcting you, it is Kommiefornia (aka: Commiefornia).

 

[Airborneguy]

I can become that perp if I had my wife's oxycodone in the glove box.

No you can't. If you wife has a legal prescription, you can't, period.

 

[Airborneguy]

What is "trumped up" in regards to an actual charge that exists nationwide (SBR)?

And for the record, "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy as it requires assuming future events.

Slippery slope - Wikipedia

 

[Acer-m14]

No you can't. If you wife has a legal prescription, you can't, period.

this against the law in some places if i remember correctly because its not in the original pill bottle .. and your wife's/gf's pills could be in ..

 

[Airborneguy]

this against the law in some places if i remember correctly because its not in the original pill bottle .. and your wife's/gf's pills could be in ..

Technically yes it is, but find me an arrest where the "perp" was the husband and a legal prescription was in the car (a vehicle is marital property).

My wife frequently drives my car which has a plate vest in the back with 8 15 round magazines. No way she gets collared for that, no worries at all. They're mine.

 

[Eddie Gunks]

@Glenn B

That is the fed law definition i quaoted. If texas uses it that is okay. Buy that is what the NFA says.

The federal law says sbr is less than 16" barrel OR less than 26" OAL.

Most states use the definitions as fed.

Again. According to the feral law that 10/22 is illegal.

Simple enough.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

My wife frequently drives my car which has a plate vest in the back with 8 15 round magazines. No way she gets collared for that, no worries at all. They're mine.

Good one.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Technically yes it is, but find me an arrest where the "perp" was the husband and a legal prescription was in the car (a vehicle is marital property).

My wife frequently drives my car which has a plate vest in the back with 8 15 round magazines. No way she gets collared for that, no worries at all. They're mine.

In Jersey she would.

 

[Eddie Gunks]

[QUOTE="Airborneguy, post: 235324, member: 6"

My wife frequently drives my car which has a plate vest in the back with 8 15 round magazines. No way she gets collared for that, no worries at all. They're mine.[/QUOTE]

WTF? Did you move to NJ? Loose a hand or a foot?

They hold 30 each!!!!!

 

[Airborneguy]

Pistol mags for work.

 

[Exonautic]

can i ask why nobody has bought up the fact that with the stock off of this, there's no stock and therefore you can not shoulder it, I.E. not a rifle. at that point it's the equivalent of being a lower receiver.

 

[Eddie Gunks]

can i ask why nobody has bought up the fact that with the stock off of this, there's no stock and therefore you can not shoulder it, I.E. not a rifle. at that point it's the equivalent of being a lower receiver.

Once a rifle always rifle.

 

[Exonautic]

Once a rifle always rifle.

i understand that applies to trying to build something else out of it but that still is applicable when its broken down like that even if it can still fire?

 

[Eddie Gunks]

i understand that applies to trying to build something else out of it but that still is applicable when its broken down like that even if it can still fire?

Let me be pedantic.

Once a rifle always a rifle.

Also applies to machine guns. Once a machine gun always a machine gun. If you chop it up into little tiny pieces, it’s still a machine gun.

 

[stuck in ny]

Let me be pedantic.

Once rifle always a rifle.

Also applies to machine guns. Once a machine gun always a machine gun. If you chop it up into little tiny pieces, it’s still a machine gun.

So if I take my Type 53 (It probably is over still, but just pretend I hacked the barrel of at 16") out of the stock I have a pistol? You could fire it like that.

 

[stuck in ny]

So if I take my Type 53 (It probably is over still, but just pretend I hacked the barrel of at 16") out of the stock I have a pistol? You could fire it like that.

I'm definietly sure a mini14 or m1 carbine varient would be less than 26 out of the stock.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Let me be pedantic.

Once a rifle always a rifle.

Also applies to machine guns. Once a machine gun always a machine gun. If you chop it up into little tiny pieces, it’s still a machine gun.

Not entirely true. From the ATF

“A machinegun receiver that has been properly destroyed may be used to assemble a ‘dummy gun’ that is not subject to the controls of the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act. When sections of destroyed machinegun receivers are used to build a dummy gun and the severed sections welded back together, the dummy gun receiver must be at least one (1) inch shorter than the original machinegun receiver. The bolt, if present, must be welded to the receiver in the closed position. The breech of the barrel must be welded closed and an obstruction welded into the barrel. Alternatively, a solid metal/plastic bar in the same shape and configuration as the original model maybe used as a ‘dummy receiver.’”

 

[Acer-m14]

@Airborneguy stay out of Main .. LOL .. quick google found this .. but i have seen a few years ago get charged for it , no idea what the end result was ..

Illegal Possession Of Your Own Prescription Drugs.

" In September of 2012, a story appeared in the Bangor Daily News about a man who was prosecuted for possessing a single oxycodone pill, in his home, outside the pill’s original container. Although the defendant had a prescription for the medication, the expiration date had passed. The Superior Court Justice hearing the case questioned whether a person could be guilty of possessing a drug that was prescribed to him. The Bangor Daily News quoted the assistant district attorney handling the case as claiming he’d prosecuted “hundreds” of similar cases. This assistant district attorney operates on the theory that if your prescription was expired on the date of the alleged conduct, you no longer “possessed a valid prescription” at that time and therefore cannot avail yourself of the affirmative defense. It is not clear whether: (a) the passage of the expiration date printed on a prescription pill bottle renders the prescription no longer “valid” within the meaning of the controlling statute; or (b) whether the person “possessed a valid prescription” for the drug, for affirmative defense purposes, as long the drug at issue was legitimately prescribed for that person in the first place. What is clear is, at least in this one prosecutorial district, you could find yourself on the other side of the “v.” from “State of Maine” if you aren’t careful.? "