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
4/25/2017 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 12/20/2001 10:47:46 PM EDT
Well I’ve complete my research. And must accept and agree with your explanation on the statutory structure and the burden of proof situation as related to the assault weapon ban. Thank you for the educations you’ve both provided me. And I apology for my rather harsh behavior during some of our discussions. Steve, Sorry to hear about your father, must be a great loss to you and your fammily, gods blessings. Shaggy, hope you’re doing well. R/K
Link Posted: 12/21/2001 12:05:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2001 11:56:53 PM EDT by Dave_G]
Who are you and what have you done with R/K? [;)]
Link Posted: 12/21/2001 12:15:22 AM EDT
The JBT's must have brainwashed him or gotten to his computer (Magic Lantern?) and posted as R/K. There's something just not right about R/K agreeing on this issue [>:/]
Link Posted: 12/22/2001 7:01:03 AM EDT
RK, Thank you for your words regarding my father. Regarding our past discussions, absolutely NO need to apologize. I enjoyed them (even though we both got testy) and I enjoy your posts in general. BTW: I am convinced there is at least some merit to a constitutionally violative "vagueness" argument, but I'm not sure how far it would go.
Link Posted: 12/22/2001 9:56:59 AM EDT
Sorry guys, no lobotomy, no alien abduction, no LSD in my Clear Pepsi, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Suppose the harsh reality finally set in, or more importantly acceptance of something I didn’t want to believe possible. (Doesn’t mean I have to like it though.) Did my time, studied the law, creation and application. Listened to what Steve and Shaggy had to say. Talked with an attorney a couple more times. R/K
Link Posted: 12/22/2001 2:28:00 PM EDT
RK - I'll second what Steve said - no reason to apologize. I know things occasionally got a little hot there but it was all in the spirit of having a little fun while discussing a troublesome topic. Hell, I think one of the best ways to test someone's proposition is to assail it from all angles and see how it stands up under fire. And you did provide good fire to test our propositions [:)] Actually, I did kind of enjoy arguing it out - but I guess thats why I went into law in the first place...
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 1:33:18 AM EDT
 Yeah, things never really got ugly, just a little rough around the edges. I really have learned a lot from both you guys, thanks. One interesting bit the lawyer showed me. Something I had looked at several time, but never spent much thought one. [i](v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the [b]date of the enactment of this subsection.[/b][/i] Relevant time period of “configuration”, the enactment date of the law. Now I didn’t pay much attention to this, until Dave’s fancy letter suggesting a possible loss of status. So, a letter from XYZ company stating the rifle’s configuration when it left the factory doesn’t prove semi-auto AW status on the date of enactment. The relevant date per the law. Now to obtain safe harbor, one would need evidence of configuration on enactment of the law. We having fun yet? R/K
Link Posted: 12/24/2001 4:11:22 PM EDT
Top Top