• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Washington DC: "30 round magazines Are OK!"

I'm glad they made this ruling. Now maybe some poor sap can benefit from it down the road by using this case as precidence to be let off. One could hope, right? Not like the network is going to care about a $1,000 fine anyway.
 
AG Martha Coakley: "It is not illegal to be illegal."

This changed everything. Laws lost all meaning after the biggest "law enforcer" in the state declared they mean nothing. Sure is liberating.
 
this stays true to the belief that if everything were illegal then the police and AG just arrest whomever they want at their own discretion

other example being the Mass AG whose gun was stolen and used in a crime but he never reported it stolen on a FA10 form--it was determined no crime was committed
 
ninjatarian said:
I'm glad they made this ruling. Now maybe some poor sap can benefit from it down the road by using this case as precidence to be let off. One could hope, right? Not like the network is going to care about a $1,000 fine anyway.
Click to expand...

This ruling is not "precedent" in the legal sense. The courts have been pretty consistent that arguments such as "someone else was not prosecuted for doing the same thing" or "someone else got a much lower penalty for the same offense" are irrelevant and not to be considered by the court.
 
Another_David said:
this stays true to the belief that if everything were illegal then the police and AG just arrest whomever they want at their own discretion

other example being the Mass AG whose gun was stolen and used in a crime but he never reported it stolen on a FA10 form--it was determined no crime was committed
Click to expand...

+1 So the law doesn't apply to everyone and those in 'charge' will decide when to use the law? In my mind that means the law is meaningless.

They should have AT LEAST hit Gregory with a $1k fine.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
This ruling is not "precedent" in the legal sense. The courts have been pretty consistent that arguments such as "someone else was not prosecuted for doing the same thing" or "someone else got a much lower penalty for the same offense" are irrelevant and not to be considered by the court.
Click to expand...

Could it sway a jury if you took a trial?

-JR
 
JFR2 said:
Could it sway a jury if you took a trial?

-JR
Click to expand...

I don't know that is even admissible. It would almost be like asking for jury nullification which, despite having deep roots in our republic, is usually not permitted.
 
There is one bright spot here, from a rhetorical point of view.

One of the things that we complain about, is that current laws are not enforced, while new laws are proposed.

Here is a perfect example. The black-letter law was violated, but because of "other circumstances" the violation was ignored. They even got the cops to tell them it was bad.

There you have the core of our argument.
 
JFR2 said:
Could it sway a jury if you took a trial?

-JR
Click to expand...

Most likely not admissible, and attorneys that try to "slip in" banned arguments risk court sanctions. The court would probably rule "The only items that can be admitted are those that help the jury decide if the defendant did, in fact, possess a banned magazine".

A classic example of the concept is a case where a defendant wished to argue "medical use" for a marijuana charge. Since the state had no medical exemption, the court ruled that the argument had no bearing on the fact being tried (ie, "did the defendant in fact grow marijauana"), and it could not be mentioned at trial. He was convicted, and the jury subsequently stated it would have acquitted if the argument had been presented.

+1 So the law doesn't apply to everyone and those in 'charge' will decide when to use the law?
Click to expand...
Correct. Ask the MSP trooper with the storage violation whose job, gun rights and pension remain intact.
 
Last edited:
because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.”
Click to expand...

so because we consider him more important than you we are letting him off scot free
 
because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.”
Click to expand...

This would also be the case in likely 99% of the times they would attempt to use this law, and 100% in when they mentioned it since CT incident.
 
The more I think about this the more upsetting it is. To get a letter from the DA stating you're in the clear for a crime is something special--like really special. Often these cases just linger and leave the "suspect" in legal limbo for years, if not forever. If it were you or I we'd most likely get some BS plea deal shoved in our face, which the $1000 max fine would be cheaper than any lawyer but it would make you a permanently disqualified firearm owner in many states. If you didn't take the deal then you'd be facing years of lawyers fees.
 
Another_David said:
The more I think about this the more upsetting it is. To get a letter from the DA stating you're in the clear for a crime is something special--like really special. Often these cases just linger and leave the "suspect" in legal limbo for years, if not forever. If it were you or I we'd most likely get some BS plea deal shoved in our face, which the $1000 max fine would be cheaper than any lawyer but it would make you a permanently disqualified firearm owner in many states. If you didn't take the deal then you'd be facing years of lawyers fees.
Click to expand...

But you also aren't one of the liberal elite calling for more and worse gun laws. This way he can stay on the streets, shilling for what they want.
 
Sorry for the repeat posting but this "discretion" issue is also what makes the moonbats so moonbatty! I know a Mass moonbat that actually found a pistol and not knowing what to do with it kept it in their house for a few days before calling the police. I told them they could have been charged with multiple crimes to which they scoffed, "I didn't DO anything illegal, and the cop just took it away, and I never got charged". This same person would nod with joy if they were asked if they support stricter gun laws and mandatory gun law sentencing. Yet when I asked them what the difference between them and the typical "person arrested with gun" report you see in the paper I just got "the stare" response.

I guess it's just part of the "we trust the government to protect us and do the right thing" mentality the moonbats rely on.
 
Last edited:
I think there's some duplication goin' on here

5047577889_c9e9d9b501.jpg
 

Similar threads

6 shot, including 2 children, after gunmen open fire in Washington DC neighborhood
Replies
1
Views
61
Uzi2
U
Washington state high-capacity magazine ban remains on books for now
Replies
1
Views
114
pastera
pastera
Washington school shooting: Students in lockdown at William Wiley Elementary as police rush to the scene
Replies
5
Views
257
Whutmeworry
Whutmeworry
Washington Transfers Seized Firearms to Ukraine as House GOP Continues Opposition to More Funding
Replies
7
Views
130
Animal357
A
Are lower 80% prohibited in MA...yet?
2
Replies
34
Views
1K
EJFudd
EJFudd
Back
Top Bottom