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    

Who are you and what have you done with R/K? [;)]

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 [>:/]

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.

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

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...  



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