Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/17/2001 6:29:09 PM EDT
Why do people/dealers refuse to sell >10 round mags into CA/NJ/MD/HI/et al. when they do not physically live there? What recourse do the state authorities have? Is there a serious chance of extradition for this level of "crime"? Isn't the importer (the buyer who physically lives there) the only one exposed to punishment? My analogy would be the adult sites found on the internet. While some states have restrictive obscenity laws, the suppliers leave it up to the person physically residing in that state to obey all laws regarding obscenity.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 6:35:43 PM EDT
The question should be: Why are states violating enumerated Constitutional rights?
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 6:38:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2001 6:37:51 PM EDT by LARRYG]
The Feds would come after him. I think he would be in violation of federal law to sell something to a person who lives in a state that does not allow it. I could be wrong. But then again, the states that make such laws are violating federal interstate commerce laws. Go figure.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 6:56:29 PM EDT
Why would the federal government enforce state laws? Interstate commerce? I seriously doubt that many people are being prosecuted for the mag ban laws, it is meant more to chill gun ownership than anything else. Most states don't have the resources to even solve serious crimes.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:37:47 PM EDT
Because of the f*cked up definition of capacity. They do not wanted to become liable for getting the customer in trouble with the local dickheads. Just think about which political party control these state: dicklesscrats. They have no balls in solving the problems in the state. They just make a band-aid media loving approach to screw things up.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:38:19 PM EDT
Because of the f*cked up definition of capacity. They do not wanted to become liable for getting the customer in trouble with the local dickheads. Just think about which political party control these state: dicklesscrats. They have no balls in solving the problems in the state. They just making a band-aid media loving approach to screw things up.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:39:14 PM EDT
Anyone? Anyone? Another point. Since there is no federal law against murder one must commmit the crime in state "X" and then enter another state in order to bring the Feds, barring a murder made in connection with violation of federal law. Based on this it would seem that you would have to bring the mags into the state on your person and then return to your state.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:40:31 PM EDT
I doubt the Feds can do anything. Magazines aren't a gun, they are a magazine. GunLvr
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:44:55 PM EDT
Why should a seller expose himself to even remote risk when he can easily sell his product in a free state?
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:54:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: Why would the federal government enforce state laws? Interstate commerce? I seriously doubt that many people are being prosecuted for the mag ban laws, it is meant more to chill gun ownership than anything else. Most states don't have the resources to even solve serious crimes.
View Quote
There's such a thing called the Lacey act which is a very serious Federal statute. The nuts and bolts of the thing is that doing crimes across state lines where one or more ends of the deal is illegal in a particular state involved lands you in a heap of trouble with the Feds.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:57:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sf46: There's such a thing called the Lacey act which is a very serious Federal statute. The nuts and bolts of the thing is that doing crimes across state lines where one or more ends of the deal is illegal in a particular state involved lands you in a heap of trouble with the Feds.
View Quote
The Lacey Act involves illegal trafficking in wildlife and plants
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 7:58:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bigdb1: Why should a seller expose himself to even remote risk when he can easily sell his product in a free state?
View Quote
That is my question, what liability?
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 8:01:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NoFFL:
Originally Posted By sf46: There's such a thing called the Lacey act which is a very serious Federal statute. The nuts and bolts of the thing is that doing crimes across state lines where one or more ends of the deal is illegal in a particular state involved lands you in a heap of trouble with the Feds.
View Quote
The Lacey Act involves illegal trafficking in wildlife and plants
View Quote
You're correct, my bad.
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 8:58:20 PM EDT
I think I will have to ask this question in one of the industry forums...
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 9:08:16 PM EDT
Hey, Imbrog|io, magazines of any capacity are not protected by the Constitution.[>Q] Paul
Link Posted: 6/17/2001 10:02:58 PM EDT
the seller can be busted by the state he was in as being a co consperrator or something kinda like selling dope they bust both the seller and the buyer just would be the state doing it
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 3:22:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RealOaf: Hey, Imbrog|io, magazines of any capacity are not protected by the Constitution.[>Q] Paul
View Quote
I'll have to agree with you on that. They are protected only by the threat of hot lead up some JBT's butt if any of them threatens to arrest me for any magazine related "crime". I'm not going to bother "fighting it out in the courts". They have their games and I have mine. Let me see now... I choooooose MINE!
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 3:31:08 AM EDT
Personally, I think it's just "imagined" liability. Look through one of the big mail order catalogs, like Cabela's or Sportsman's Guide and you'll see shipping restrictions on several things: airguns, armor piercing ammo, mags etc. Maybe they've gotten some heavy-handed "suggestions" from the Fed's but I doubt anyone's been prosecuted. Nobody but the gun owners & sellers seem to give a rat's fart about the mag law in NJ. I've never been asked or even hinted at while shooting at ranges alongside cops. Norm in wonderful NJ
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 3:52:10 AM EDT
I dont see whats the big deal either. The state(NJ) has a capacity restriction on us. 15 rounds for rifle. So I order from one of the numerous catalogs, 20 and 30 rounders, when they arrive, block em to 15. Its that simple. I've even gotten 30's that I had to ship the blocks to them before they would ship them to me. I dont mind it to ease someones paranoia about mag restrictions. And I take these blocked mags to the range as well. Many police shoot at the range I go to and I've never had anybody even question me about em.Meanwhile I'm at the bench breaking in my new Thermolds.I dont worry about it too much, as long as MAG CAPACITY for your state is being adhered to, they cant screw with you. Synweap223 Out! Next up , the guy with the C-Mag Blocked to 15 rounds! [whacko]
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 4:15:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NoFFL:
Originally Posted By bigdb1: Why should a seller expose himself to even remote risk when he can easily sell his product in a free state?
View Quote
That is my question, what liability?
View Quote
The risk of having to defend himself in court, no mater how bogus the charges, with real dollars against the limitless taxpayer dollars of the state. None of us know what some ideological bureaucrat can trump up just to bankrupt one of the little people that pissed him off. How about the feds trying out RICO (is that the correct acronym?) on this issue? How about mail fraud? How about a civil case by some poor slob who got busted with his contraband mags and now needs someone else to be at fault? Sellers want to make money. They want as few hassles as possible. There is a huge market for their products in free states. You don't have to like it, you have to live with it.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:33:11 AM EDT
So we seem to be in agreement that some gun owners, and some of their suppliers, are willingly obeying authorities that have no jurisdiction over them? So heavily armed, yet so easy to push around...
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:46:13 AM EDT
Nobody in MD seems to care that a 19 has 30 round mags that have been banned for sale in the state since 1996. Of course, going to an out of state college and keeping copies of the shipping invoices with the mags is good insurance against JBTs, as the law says nothing about importing mags into the state as long as you initiate the sale of mags outside the state. Kharn
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 6:48:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NoFFL: So we seem to be in agreement that some gun owners, and some of their suppliers, are willingly obeying authorities that have no jurisdiction over them? So heavily armed, yet so easy to push around...
View Quote
The sale of magazines to restricted states is an economic issue, not a political one. You need to separate the two. As for the political issue... The people are stupid. They'll sell their freedom for an easier life.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 7:41:41 AM EDT
One of the conditions of getting and keeping an FFL is that you won't participate in any violation of any state or local law. The BATF keeps FFL holders informed of significant changes in state laws. An FFL holder would not be able to claim ignorance of a state magazine restriction as an excuse.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 9:00:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RealOaf: Hey, Imbrog|io, magazines of any capacity are not protected by the Constitution.[>Q] Paul
View Quote
Right to Bear (Some) Arms The “civilized-warfare” test excludes firearms that many persons want to be included. By Dave Kopel [url]www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel060701.shtml[/url] (excerpt) "Finally, we need to remember Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, originally published in 1828. That dictionary, which is closer to the origin of the Second Amendment than any other American dictionary, defines "arms" as follows: "Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body ... A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, [B]cartridge-box[/B] and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.""
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:08:42 PM EDT
The Lacey Act is directly related to the Cagney act whcich was cancelled because both parties could not act. aka "cagney & Lacey"
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 5:32:34 PM EDT
The dealers want to cover their butts, plain and simple. When people don't know what they can do, they don't do anything.You are right in that most LE officers don't give a crap. It's a federal thing , so local PD thinks " Let DOJ worry about it". I've told an officer I was buying an AR and keeping it out of state and he said,"Why, unless you are doing something stupid (Speeding, bragging, dealing drugs, contract killing, etc.)who's going to know if you own it? Take it to the range and shoot it." I think the only time DOJ will check shooting ranges is at large events (3 gun matches). Even then, the range can tell them, "I don't want you harrassing my patrons." It's alot easier if you're a private club though. Being open to the public, you are "supposed" to let LE do what they have to do.
Link Posted: 6/18/2001 11:42:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RealOaf:Hey, Imbrog|io, magazines of any capacity are not protected by the Constitution.[>Q] Paul
View Quote
you are wrong about that. 1st, the ninth amendment protects it, in conjunction with the 2nd(ie you can't keep and bear arms properly, with the intent viewed by the founders-as a defense against tyranny, if a piece of the firearm can not be purchased). Plus, if you grant that Congress can restrict magazines to 10 rounds, which is completely arbitrary, then you say they can restrict any feeding device to any amount, including 0. That includes not only magazines, belts, but integral feeding devices which can't be separated. That clearly would be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Then there is the other problem with magazine bans or restrictions- that Congress nor the United States in any capacity was delegated the power to ban or restrict them. It can be argued that they can be taxed, but it only could be as a revenue measure, not as a regulation.
Top Top