Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/26/2002 3:40:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2002 3:49:26 PM EDT by FanoftheBlackRifle]
From the article: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/26/philly.airport/index.html[/url]
The Associated Press reported that court papers filed in the case said the second magazine was labeled "restricted law enforcement, government use only." Under federal law ordinary citizens cannot possess magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
View Quote
I wrote them a nasty-gram suggesting that they actually READ the laws before making blanket statements. Perhaps if enough of us do it, something will happen. But then again, its CNN, so probably not. [Edited to add:] I realize that in this case it was probably one of those grey-market imported HK mags that she probably shouldn't have had, but that still doesn't excuse the incorrect generalization. FOTBR
Link Posted: 8/26/2002 9:41:26 PM EDT
Good thing none of us is "ordinary".
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 11:23:04 AM EDT
She allegedly had at least one LEO marked HK mag. "Gray Market" mags are unmarked, and the burden is on the government to prove it is unlawful to possess. ( Stupid AW ban! [pissed] ) I believe the only HK in .357 SIG is the USP357 Compact, which probably did not exist before 1994.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 1:23:37 PM EDT
This makes sense.....marked mag vs grey market....I'm not an H&K person (I think its decent stuff, just way overpriced, at least for me) so I really don't follow H&K stuff. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Also, I got a response from them claiming that they aren't anti-gun, and that their legal department said that was how the laws were written. What a wonderful legal department. -FOTBR
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 1:27:00 PM EDT
CNN=Clinton News Network!
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 4:45:28 PM EDT
CNN finally got it right [url]http://www.cnn.com/2002/TRAVEL/NEWS/08/27/airport.screener.fired/index.html[/url]=cnn
The affidavit also said the clip of ammunition was labeled "restricted -- law enforcement, government use only." The clip was loaded with 12 rounds, the affidavit said. Federal law bars civilians from possessing magazines manufactured since 1994 that can hold more than 10 rounds. [bold]It is legal to own magazines holding more than 10 rounds that were manufactured before 1994. [/bold]However, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms believes the weapon was most likely manufactured after that time.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 5:14:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle: This makes sense.....marked mag vs grey market....I'm not an H&K person (I think its decent stuff, just way overpriced, at least for me) so I really don't follow H&K stuff. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Also, I got a response from them claiming that they aren't anti-gun, and that their legal department said that was how the laws were written. What a wonderful legal department. -FOTBR
View Quote
Anytime [:D] yes, HK=$$$$$$ Ah, CNN, the Clinton News Network...[puke]
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 5:15:48 PM EDT
shame, shame, know your name. i am glad they banned these things. now only criminals can have high cap mags!
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 5:58:36 PM EDT
Well, I dunno how many other people wrote cnn nasty-grams, but at least they fixed it -- sort of. I'm sure they mean "magazine" instead of weapon -- otherwise I'm still fvcked because of my 2001 manufactured AR and a whole lotta normal capacity mags. -FOTBR
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 6:03:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2002 6:10:38 PM EDT by Bushmaster-M4gery]
I wrote the Atlanta Journal Constitution this afternoon...they had similar incorrect information. First they cold it a .357 revolver and that they found an extra illegal magazine for the weapon. I about fell over laughing with the picture of the journalist trying to insert the magazine in the revolver. Same info about it being illegal for non law enforcement officers to possess hi-cap mags. Edited to add: This was on the front page of the Metro section. Nice fact checking.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 6:25:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Kaesan: She allegedly had at least one LEO marked HK mag. "Gray Market" mags are unmarked, and the burden is on the government to prove it is unlawful to possess. ( Stupid AW ban! [pissed] ) I believe the only HK in .357 SIG is the USP357 Compact, which probably did not exist before 1994.
View Quote
Why couldn't it have been a rebarelled .40? With our media the whole story behind the gun will probably never be heard though... Even more if she is found not guilty we'll never hear another word about it.... Only anti material will be released by our beloved CNN. Jake
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 7:17:02 PM EDT
They still didn't get it right:
However, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms believes the weapon was most likely manufactured after that time.
View Quote
The date of manufacture of the weapon is irrelevant. A hicap mag can be legally used in a new gun.
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 7:45:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2002 7:47:47 PM EDT by Scollins]
Originally Posted By LARRYG: They still didn't get it right:
However, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms believes the weapon was most likely manufactured after that time.
View Quote
The date of manufacture of the weapon is irrelevant. A hicap mag can be legally used in a new gun.
View Quote
I think the intent here is that since the pistol was first introduced after 1994, it is very unlikely that high capacity magazines were in existence prior to 1994. I don't know of any company that produces accessories (magazines, etc.) for a pistol it has not produced. However, a .40 S&W magazine is usually identical to a 357SIG magazine, so it is quite possible to have hi-caps for a pistol introduced after 1994. Scott Collins Newcastle, WA PS - where can I get some hi-cap clips for my Glock 23. I only have hi-cap magazines, and I think some hi-cap clips would be a nice addition...... [:)]
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 8:06:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle: ordinary citizens
View Quote
define ordinary. well we are all special in our own way.....so none of us are ordinary. i am not ordinary. are you?
Link Posted: 8/27/2002 8:48:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Citabria7GCBC: define ordinary. well we are all special in our own way.....so none of us are ordinary. i am not ordinary. are you?
View Quote
That was directly from the article. I know for a fact I'm not ordinary. Ordinary is boring. [:D] FOTBR
Top Top