BD66, do you trust the government agencies to be fair in all cases?
I said I don't agree with the law. I don't agree with the way regulatory power is being abused.
I'm like you. I choose to be far, far, far over on the safe side of the law. Past events have proven that, even though our constitution says "innocent until proven guilty," the opposite is how some situations are usually handled.
Did you know that they confiscated all of the firearms from the father of the kid who shot the school up in CA with a .22 revolver? Does that sound like "innocent until proven guilty?" The father said the pistol was locked up. Do we know for sure? NO. Is he guilty? NO. Not unless the prosecutor can convince a jury that the pistol was NOT locked up. Should they confiscate ALL of his legally owned firearms? HECK NO! Just the one used in the commission of the crime, as evidence. In most cases, it's CONFISCATE NOW, and let the poor guy with a job, family, house payment, and grocery bill try to find enough money to hire a lawyer to get his PERSONAL PROPERTY, ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED BY THE FED. GOVT back for him.
I think we agree here that the safe road is the best road. I think we both agree that the regulatory agency in this case would choose to err on the "oppressive" side and confiscate now, ask questions later. However, I don't get the crack about "these experts" being with him in court. I never stated that I was an expert, or even a lawyer. I simply stated my opinion based on extensive research into the Assault Weapons Ban. For a bill written by a bunch of politicians, it is pretty simple to read and understand, even if it is a stupid way to approach something. IMHO, it's a solution looking for a problem, but we must live with it until someone is able to do something about it. And I admit that, unless you make a big booboo, you probably won't ever be checked for "Semiautomatic Assault Ban Compliance." It's a decision each individual must make based on how much they put at risk by being in the "gray area."
I hope the ban sunsets in 2004. Until then, I'll err on the safe side of the law, and grit my teeth the whole time I am doing so.
Steve, I understand the way things "should" be, but isn't it obvious that some regulatory agencies "go a little overboard" in their enforcement tactics? Is it possible that an agent and prosecutor could stretch the limits of their authority and make it a bloody hell trying to get private property back, even though the person is innocent of any crime? Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that it's better to err on the safe side and humor this stupid, unconstitutional law until something can be done about it?
To each his own, YMMV, INALBIPOOTV, yada, yada