Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 2/13/2013 4:42:06 AM EDT
Sorry, I searched, and I went to the NYSP website, but it's not longer there, so I'm going to ask here:

Can you still sell >10 rnd mags privately to another NYS resident at this time?
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 4:46:51 AM EDT
Yes Sir in NYS we have until 4/13/2013 to acquire all the 10 round magazines we will ever need please help us!
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 4:49:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2013 4:50:04 AM EDT by FudgieGhost1]

Originally Posted By goturback:
Yes Sir in NYS we have until 4/13/2013 to acquire all the 10 round magazines we will ever need please help us!

I'm not asking about 10 round mags, I"m asking about 20 & 30 round mags. . . the ">" symbol means "more than". . .
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 4:52:10 AM EDT
No you cant, only 10 round mags untill April 13, 2113. You can only sell that out of stste at this time.
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 5:09:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CAP1974:
No you cant, only 10 round mags untill April 13, 2113. You can only sell that out of stste at this time.

Ok, I did download the statute, and I went back to read it. . . this section is now making me think I can sell them until next year:

An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device, the possession of which is made illegal by the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.

Am I right? . . .


Link Posted: 2/13/2013 4:33:11 PM EDT
I wouldn't do it. A lot of places aren't even shipping 10 round mags to NY and no one will ship 20 or 30 round mags at all.
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 4:41:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2013 4:44:22 PM EDT by emsjeep]
The amendment to 265.00 (22) (Section 37) took effect immediately. It reads, in part: "An individual who transfers any such weapon or large capacity ammunition device to an individual inside New York state or without complying with the provisions of this paragraph shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor..."

The definition of LCAFD changed immediately too as to subsection (a) of 265.00(23) it's plausible that the pre-ban fall into this prohibition.

Prolly not worth it...
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 5:14:35 PM EDT
FYI there is an exception in the law for mags over 50 years old- for example ww two era m1 carbine mags
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 5:57:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2013 5:59:10 PM EDT by 45stops-em-quick]
The way it reads is that a transfer within NYS would be ok, but it would be on the new owner to have them out of state or destroyed by years end. I'm no lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Eta. I'd avoid doing this if it were me, but ymmv.
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 6:17:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 45stops-em-quick:
The way it reads is that a transfer within NYS would be ok, but it would be on the new owner to have them out of state or destroyed by years end. I'm no lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Eta. I'd avoid doing this if it were me, but ymmv.


You think that is consistent with the language I posted above...? I'm like 70/30 against that personally...
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 8:02:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By 45stops-em-quick:
The way it reads is that a transfer within NYS would be ok, but it would be on the new owner to have them out of state or destroyed by years end. I'm no lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Eta. I'd avoid doing this if it were me, but ymmv.


You think that is consistent with the language I posted above...? I'm like 70/30 against that personally...
EMS: did you see my posting of this section of the statute above? You left out the last part. . .

unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device. . . . is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.

Link Posted: 2/13/2013 8:36:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:
Can you still sell >10 rnd mags privately to another NYS resident at this time?


For the rest of your life.
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 9:13:00 PM EDT
how can NYS have jurisdiction over an individual outside of state boundaries?
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 9:19:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2013 9:52:07 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By 45stops-em-quick:
The way it reads is that a transfer within NYS would be ok, but it would be on the new owner to have them out of state or destroyed by years end. I'm no lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Eta. I'd avoid doing this if it were me, but ymmv.


You think that is consistent with the language I posted above...? I'm like 70/30 against that personally...
EMS: did you see my posting of this section of the statute above? You left out the last part. . .

unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device. . . . is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.



If you look at 265.02(8) which takes effect 60 days from signing, you are only exempt from prosecution under the statute if you possessed the pre-94 11+ mags before the effective date of that section. Penalty is a Class D Felony. So that would at least put a timeline on this of March 15 ish, if transferring them is otherwise legal?

265.36 is the companion that covers mags lawfully possessed prior to the effective date (60 days again) and makes it an A Misdemeanor.

Together these are in tension with 265.00(22)'s allowance of a 1 year period...

Maybe try to break this down a little for myself...

(H) ANY WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (E) OR (F) OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND
4 ANY LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT WAS LEGALLY POSSESSED
5 BY AN INDIVIDUAL PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF
6 TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH, MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO,
7 EXCHANGED WITH OR DISPOSED OF TO A PURCHASER AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS SUCH
8 WEAPONS OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE PROVIDED THAT
9 ANY SUCH TRANSFER TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE MUST
10 BE REPORTED TO THE ENTITY WHEREIN THE WEAPON IS REGISTERED WITHIN SEVEN-
11 TY-TWO HOURS OF SUCH TRANSFER. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY SUCH
12 WEAPON OR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION DEVICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL INSIDE NEW
13 YORK STATE OR WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH
14 SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR UNLESS SUCH LARGE CAPACITY
15 AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS MADE ILLEGAL BY
16 THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARA-
17 GRAPH, IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAP-
18 TER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH.

1)Subject: a-"e" weapons, b-"f" weapons and c- LCAFD legally possessed before 1/15/13.
2)What can you do with c?: Only sell to authorized purchasers in-state or entity out of state.
3)Penalty: If you sell inside NYS or blow off the reporting requirement - Class A Misd.
4)Exception- Reading A) You can sell in the state for 1-year; Reading B) Possession is made immediately illegal by this statute (265.00 (22)(H)), you must sell in compliance with line 2 within 1 year.

This statute is providing the exemption for mags that were legally owned on 1/14/13...I think at best there might be a window to make the sale between 1/15/13 and 3/15/13 but then the new buyer wouldn't be availed of the 1 year grace period and would have to dispose of them or face the penalty of 265.36?

But then again, the effective date of the 265.00(23) section is also in question. They say the changes to paragraph "a" take effect immediately, except they didn't change paragraph "a" they changed the phrase prior to the lettered list, so as it stands, pre-94 mags aren't LCAFDs until that whole section takes effect in 90 days...except its such a glaring mistake that I don't want to rely on it...

I'm at the point where this whole thing is so FUBAR'ed I think the best thing to do is just to try to divine legislative intent and lump the mags in with what they did with the assault weapons. Just due to the mistakes and contradictions and poor language I don't know if we can know what is legal and what is not.
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 9:28:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shiky:
how can NYS have jurisdiction over an individual outside of state boundaries?


"Section 20.20 Geographical jurisdiction of offenses; jurisdiction of state" generally, but I think we are talking in-state sales here...
Link Posted: 2/13/2013 11:17:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shiky:
how can NYS have jurisdiction over an individual outside of state boundaries?

They don't have any jurisdiction. No one has ever been prosecuted for an act that is legal in the state they were in at the time. No one on this forum has ever been able to prove otherwise.

Link Posted: 2/14/2013 7:38:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By shiky:
how can NYS have jurisdiction over an individual outside of state boundaries?

They don't have any jurisdiction. No one has ever been prosecuted for an act that is legal in the state they were in at the time. No one on this forum has ever been able to prove otherwise.



What does it matter if it's legal in the other state? The whole point is that it concerns the laws of New York. New York doesn't need to concern itself with the statutes of another state. You really still have no idea what you are talking about.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 12:53:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2013 12:53:25 PM EDT by FudgieGhost1]

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By 45stops-em-quick:
The way it reads is that a transfer within NYS would be ok, but it would be on the new owner to have them out of state or destroyed by years end. I'm no lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Eta. I'd avoid doing this if it were me, but ymmv.


You think that is consistent with the language I posted above...? I'm like 70/30 against that personally...
EMS: did you see my posting of this section of the statute above? You left out the last part. . .

unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device. . . . is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.



If you look at 265.02(8) which takes effect 60 days from signing, you are only exempt from prosecution under the statute if you possessed the pre-94 11+ mags before the effective date of that section. Penalty is a Class D Felony. So that would at least put a timeline on this of March 15 ish, if transferring them is otherwise legal?

265.36 is the companion that covers mags lawfully possessed prior to the effective date (60 days again) and makes it an A Misdemeanor.

Together these are in tension with 265.00(22)'s allowance of a 1 year period...

Maybe try to break this down a little for myself...

(H) ANY WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (E) OR (F) OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND
4 ANY LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT WAS LEGALLY POSSESSED
5 BY AN INDIVIDUAL PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF
6 TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH, MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO,
7 EXCHANGED WITH OR DISPOSED OF TO A PURCHASER AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS SUCH
8 WEAPONS OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE PROVIDED THAT
9 ANY SUCH TRANSFER TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE MUST
10 BE REPORTED TO THE ENTITY WHEREIN THE WEAPON IS REGISTERED WITHIN SEVEN-
11 TY-TWO HOURS OF SUCH TRANSFER. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY SUCH
12 WEAPON OR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION DEVICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL INSIDE NEW
13 YORK STATE OR WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH
14 SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR UNLESS SUCH LARGE CAPACITY
15 AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS MADE ILLEGAL BY
16 THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARA-
17 GRAPH, IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAP-
18 TER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH.

1)Subject: a-"e" weapons, b-"f" weapons and c- LCAFD legally possessed before 1/15/13.
2)What can you do with c?: Only sell to authorized purchasers in-state or entity out of state.
3)Penalty: If you sell inside NYS or blow off the reporting requirement - Class A Misd.
4)Exception- Reading A) You can sell in the state for 1-year; Reading B) Possession is made immediately illegal by this statute (265.00 (22)(H)), you must sell in compliance with line 2 within 1 year.

This statute is providing the exemption for mags that were legally owned on 1/14/13...I think at best there might be a window to make the sale between 1/15/13 and 3/15/13 but then the new buyer wouldn't be availed of the 1 year grace period and would have to dispose of them or face the penalty of 265.36?

But then again, the effective date of the 265.00(23) section is also in question. They say the changes to paragraph "a" take effect immediately, except they didn't change paragraph "a" they changed the phrase prior to the lettered list, so as it stands, pre-94 mags aren't LCAFDs until that whole section takes effect in 90 days...except its such a glaring mistake that I don't want to rely on it...

I'm at the point where this whole thing is so FUBAR'ed I think the best thing to do is just to try to divine legislative intent and lump the mags in with what they did with the assault weapons. Just due to the mistakes and contradictions and poor language I don't know if we can know what is legal and what is not.
EMS: thanks for taking the time to try and part the veil. . . lol. . . clear as mud! I edited my EE ad to say no sale to NYS residents, citing the non-clarity of the statue and taking the advice of you and others. . . and I also denied the interested party (from NY) the sale, . . . his join date was only in December. . .

Link Posted: 2/14/2013 7:41:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By FudgieGhost1:

Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By 45stops-em-quick:
The way it reads is that a transfer within NYS would be ok, but it would be on the new owner to have them out of state or destroyed by years end. I'm no lawyer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Eta. I'd avoid doing this if it were me, but ymmv.


You think that is consistent with the language I posted above...? I'm like 70/30 against that personally...
EMS: did you see my posting of this section of the statute above? You left out the last part. . .

unless such large capacity ammunition feeding device. . . . is transferred within one year of the effective date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.



If you look at 265.02(8) which takes effect 60 days from signing, you are only exempt from prosecution under the statute if you possessed the pre-94 11+ mags before the effective date of that section. Penalty is a Class D Felony. So that would at least put a timeline on this of March 15 ish, if transferring them is otherwise legal?

265.36 is the companion that covers mags lawfully possessed prior to the effective date (60 days again) and makes it an A Misdemeanor.

Together these are in tension with 265.00(22)'s allowance of a 1 year period...

Maybe try to break this down a little for myself...

(H) ANY WEAPON DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH (E) OR (F) OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND
4 ANY LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE THAT WAS LEGALLY POSSESSED
5 BY AN INDIVIDUAL PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF
6 TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH, MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO,
7 EXCHANGED WITH OR DISPOSED OF TO A PURCHASER AUTHORIZED TO POSSESS SUCH
8 WEAPONS OR TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE PROVIDED THAT
9 ANY SUCH TRANSFER TO AN INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY OUTSIDE OF THE STATE MUST
10 BE REPORTED TO THE ENTITY WHEREIN THE WEAPON IS REGISTERED WITHIN SEVEN-
11 TY-TWO HOURS OF SUCH TRANSFER. AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TRANSFERS ANY SUCH
12 WEAPON OR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION DEVICE TO AN INDIVIDUAL INSIDE NEW
13 YORK STATE OR WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH
14 SHALL BE GUILTY OF A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR UNLESS SUCH LARGE CAPACITY
15 AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE, THE POSSESSION OF WHICH IS MADE ILLEGAL BY
16 THE CHAPTER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARA-
17 GRAPH, IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CHAP-
18 TER OF THE LAWS OF TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN WHICH ADDED THIS PARAGRAPH.

1)Subject: a-"e" weapons, b-"f" weapons and c- LCAFD legally possessed before 1/15/13.
2)What can you do with c?: Only sell to authorized purchasers in-state or entity out of state.
3)Penalty: If you sell inside NYS or blow off the reporting requirement - Class A Misd.
4)Exception- Reading A) You can sell in the state for 1-year; Reading B) Possession is made immediately illegal by this statute (265.00 (22)(H)), you must sell in compliance with line 2 within 1 year.

This statute is providing the exemption for mags that were legally owned on 1/14/13...I think at best there might be a window to make the sale between 1/15/13 and 3/15/13 but then the new buyer wouldn't be availed of the 1 year grace period and would have to dispose of them or face the penalty of 265.36?

But then again, the effective date of the 265.00(23) section is also in question. They say the changes to paragraph "a" take effect immediately, except they didn't change paragraph "a" they changed the phrase prior to the lettered list, so as it stands, pre-94 mags aren't LCAFDs until that whole section takes effect in 90 days...except its such a glaring mistake that I don't want to rely on it...

I'm at the point where this whole thing is so FUBAR'ed I think the best thing to do is just to try to divine legislative intent and lump the mags in with what they did with the assault weapons. Just due to the mistakes and contradictions and poor language I don't know if we can know what is legal and what is not.
EMS: thanks for taking the time to try and part the veil. . . lol. . . clear as mud! I edited my EE ad to say no sale to NYS residents, citing the non-clarity of the statue and taking the advice of you and others. . . and I also denied the interested party (from NY) the sale, . . . his join date was only in December. . .



Yeah, I'm sorry I can't give you something more authoritative, but in the presence of such ambiguity I hope everyone here can just stay out of the headlines for now...
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 7:51:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By shiky:
how can NYS have jurisdiction over an individual outside of state boundaries?

They don't have any jurisdiction. No one has ever been prosecuted for an act that is legal in the state they were in at the time. No one on this forum has ever been able to prove otherwise.



What does it matter if it's legal in the other state? The whole point is that it concerns the laws of New York. New York doesn't need to concern itself with the statutes of another state. You really still have no idea what you are talking about.


the law is written that anyone caught selling a mag to an NYer from out of state is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. My question is how on earth can they prosecute someone conducting an online sale?
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 9:32:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2013 9:38:54 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By shiky:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By shiky:
how can NYS have jurisdiction over an individual outside of state boundaries?

They don't have any jurisdiction. No one has ever been prosecuted for an act that is legal in the state they were in at the time. No one on this forum has ever been able to prove otherwise.



What does it matter if it's legal in the other state? The whole point is that it concerns the laws of New York. New York doesn't need to concern itself with the statutes of another state. You really still have no idea what you are talking about.


the law is written that anyone caught selling a mag to an NYer from out of state is guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. My question is how on earth can they prosecute someone conducting an online sale?


They can, it's complicated, if it happens it will probly be the result of a sting operation or in connection with a crime eventually committed with the mag.

States can exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction, though for a variety of reasons it is rare it is still possible. The statute is CPL 20.20, but it's just as much fun as reading the SAFE Act. You could write a 2 volume book about the statute itself and not work out all of the relevant issues. Point is, it is rare, but possible. And as long as a portion of the crime is "consummated" in New York either by the principal or by way of an accomplice situation, the laws of the other state don't matter (ie. if you went to PA and bought a PMAG and brought it home, the seller is probably not committing a crime, my cursory reading of 20.30). Most often it is invoked in drug running operations and governmental corruption and fraud.

If your question was a practical one, my thought is that it would be difficult and probably not worth anyone's time. I would just be worried about running into a sting operation with a DA looking to make a name for themselves or if your mag ended up in a public incident and you had the press pushing for someone to blame. Online is anonymous only to a certain extent, you know very well how they like to hold up a baby killing gun/magazine and proclaim victory.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 9:47:46 PM EDT
It's never happened. There is a make-believe lawyer here who says it can happen, but he has no proof . NY juristiction stops at it's borders, period.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 9:50:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2013 9:51:06 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By Ironball:
It's never happened. There is a make-believe lawyer here who says it can happen, but he has no proof . NY juristiction stops at it's borders, period.


The statute is quoted. Even if you believe that it doesn't apply to these facts, your statement is patently false and purposefully misleading.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 9:53:15 PM EDT
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Ironball:
It's never happened. There is a make-believe lawyer here who says it can happen, but he has no proof . NY juristiction stops at it's borders, period.


The statute is quoted. Even if you believe that it doesn't apply to these facts, your statement is patently false and purposefully misleading.

You still can't show where NY prosecuted someone from beyond it's borders for mail order sales. You are patently full of shit.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:02:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Ironball:
It's never happened. There is a make-believe lawyer here who says it can happen, but he has no proof . NY juristiction stops at it's borders, period.


The statute is quoted. Even if you believe that it doesn't apply to these facts, your statement is patently false and purposefully misleading.

You still can't show where NY prosecuted someone from beyond it's borders for mail order sales. You are patently full of shit.


Show me where I can search prosecutions and I'll be happy to do it for you.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:09:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
[Show me where I can search prosecutions and I'll be happy to do it for you.


All I'm asking you to do is back up your bullshit or STFU.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:17:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2013 10:19:54 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
[Show me where I can search prosecutions and I'll be happy to do it for you.


All I'm asking you to do is back up your bullshit or STFU.


I have in very significant ways, but not to your satisfaction for whatever reason, probably because you don't understand that in the scheme of things a prior prosecution really doesn't mean much except that the theory is on some level sound as judged by other people of similar education. There are other ways to lend credibility to a theory of law which include such things as the plain language of the statute and finding conceptual and factual parallels in cases that HAVE been prosecuted and come under scrutiny of appeal. Those examples I have provided to you willingly, you don't like them because they involve Widget X instead of Widget Y which is a rather inconsequential fact as the other concepts line up rather nicely. I'm not trying this case arrest to appeal, I'm just demonstrating that prosecution isn't barred by the plain language of the statute and that the theory has been employed in similar situations. I don't think you can really get a better picture than that from anyone without some serious research. Not every topic has a case on point, if that was what was required, we wouldn't really ever get much of anywhere.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:21:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
[Show me where I can search prosecutions and I'll be happy to do it for you.


All I'm asking you to do is back up your bullshit or STFU.


I have in very significant ways, but not to your satisfaction for whatever reason, probably because you don't understand that in the scheme of things a prior prosecution really doesn't mean much except that the theory is on some level sound as judged by other people of similar education. There are other ways to lend credibility to a theory of law which include such things as the plain language of the statute and finding conceptual and factual parallels in cases that HAVE been prosecuted and come under scrutiny of appeal. Those examples I have provided to you willingly, you don't like them because they involve Widget X instead of Widget Y which is a rather inconsequential fact as the other concepts line up rather nicely. I'm not trying this case arrest to appeal, I'm just demonstrating that prosecution isn't barred by the plain language of the statute and that the theory has been employed in similar situations. I don't think you can really get more than that. Not every topic has a case on point, if that was what was required, we wouldn't really ever get much of anywhere.




New York cannot, and never has prosecuted someone from beyond it's borders for a mail order sale. Now go to bed junior, you are sleepy and starting to ramble.
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:23:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2013 10:23:56 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
[Show me where I can search prosecutions and I'll be happy to do it for you.


All I'm asking you to do is back up your bullshit or STFU.


I have in very significant ways, but not to your satisfaction for whatever reason, probably because you don't understand that in the scheme of things a prior prosecution really doesn't mean much except that the theory is on some level sound as judged by other people of similar education. There are other ways to lend credibility to a theory of law which include such things as the plain language of the statute and finding conceptual and factual parallels in cases that HAVE been prosecuted and come under scrutiny of appeal. Those examples I have provided to you willingly, you don't like them because they involve Widget X instead of Widget Y which is a rather inconsequential fact as the other concepts line up rather nicely. I'm not trying this case arrest to appeal, I'm just demonstrating that prosecution isn't barred by the plain language of the statute and that the theory has been employed in similar situations. I don't think you can really get more than that. Not every topic has a case on point, if that was what was required, we wouldn't really ever get much of anywhere.




New York cannot, and never has prosecuted someone from beyond it's borders for a mail order sale. Now go to bed junior, you are sleepy and starting to ramble.


How do you know this?
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:30:01 PM EDT
Does mommy know you are still up?
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:41:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 10:47:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2013 10:51:49 PM EDT by emsjeep]
Originally Posted By Ironball:
Does mommy know you are still up?


Enough, meet me here to end this: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_130/1441375_.html&page=1
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 11:15:01 PM EDT
In otherwords, your constant whining to the mods, trying to ban people who don't buy your fake lawyering has has got you nowhere, so you throw down a challenge?
Link Posted: 2/14/2013 11:18:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ironball:
In otherwords, your constant whining to the mods, trying to ban people who don't buy your fake lawyering has has got you nowhere, so you throw down a challenge?


You want to make an argument that has some merit, you are welcome to do it, I would really like some additional perspectives on the issue. Take the personal BS to the other thread please.
Top Top