Decorated Combat Veteran Arrested In New York...AR Magazines BEFORE the NY "law"

[BjornF16]

Bjorn:

'Specialized' Infantrymen because they are a SAW or 240 gunner? He, he, he. No sweat. I understand what you are saying.

Here is what doesn't make sense to me about your dividing line. Perhaps you can explain it.

Why not a machinegun such as the 240 or M-60 or a Automatic Weapon like the SAW? I mean, you can slap a C Mag into a M-4 and have a fully automatic weapon with a 100 round capability just like a SAW or 240 with a 100 round belt. And the SAW and M-4 take the same ammunition.

So, why do you think that a SAW should be kept from civilian purchase yet a fully automatic M-4 is OK? You obviously have a reason and what ever it is, it is a line you have drawn.

LR1955

I believe I've already alluded to what the criteria is: "in common use" = standard issue. Not everyone carries the 240 or M-60. Even my daughter, as a Communications Specialist, was issued an M-4.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the US Army (or for that matter, the USN, USMC, or USAF) issues 100 round magazines (C-Mag) to everyone with their M-4s or M-16s. Therefore they aren't "in common use".

Dave Kopel does a better job than I in explaining it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkKKTtdkqE

So if this soldier committed an offense. A law. (No matter whether you agree with that law or not) he should be free and clear of it??? He may be a soldier and that's an amazing sacrifice that I appreciate dearly. But you screw up. You pay up. Or what did I miss?

I'm not sure where or to whom you directed this...but I'll take a shot at answering. If you believe a law is unconstitutional, then you accept the charges (i.e. no plea bargain) and you fight it in court. Maybe the first judge or jury doesn't agree with you...then you appeal. Maybe it makes its way all the way to the Supreme Court. If it's ruled unconstitutional, then not only is it a win for the defendant (maybe a costly win, maybe not) but also a win for all law abiding folks.

There's another path that an unconstitutional (or unjust) law can be rid of: Nullification. Most judges and lawyers won't talk about this, but if a jury decides a law is particularly unjust, they can just find the defendant not guilty. With double jeopardy, he can't be tried for the same "crime" again. The law stays on the books, but it initiates a conversation about the law, maybe a repeal of the law.

You guys really think we need retards. Or nonretards for that matter running around with automatics ??? That's dumb. There are certain things that a guy can enjoy. And no one should be able to tell you what you can or cannot enjoy. But at the same time. Really??? If someone in my town has awfully auto. I would hope the sob was capable and fully sane. But here's the problem. What's to say he is gonna stay that way?

By this line of reasoning, no one should have a knife, axe, hatchet much less any gun. Maybe we should ban baseball bats as they can be particularly deadly.

There are already laws that prohibit certain "classes" of people from owning/possessing firearms.

You do raise a good point about what happens if someone previously cleared "goes bad". There are normally warning signs. Most of the instances of mass shootings involved people who exhibited plenty of warning signs: Tucson, Aurora, Columbine (if the parents had paid attention). Even this crack pot in AL has exhibited warning signs.

Law enforcement should act in these cases. The Tucson sheriff failed. The Aurora psychiatrist failed to report. LE failed in AL. Leave law abiding citizens alone.