We had some excellent responses regarding car safes. I looked at an in console safe for my truck, the price has come way down, it is now on the “to buy” list.

I’m in the process of bringing a new client onboard. This makes me grateful to Miguel for getting me started on WordPress.

Ballistics software is currently on hold until I get client work caught up.

For our readers in Massachusetts, be aware that there is a horrible bill being pushed. I’ve not read the bill, but second hand descriptions from people I trust on the Interwebs suggest it will truly mess with everybody.

As predicted, the argument being pushed by the infringers is that “in common use” actually means “in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense” which actually means “In common use for self-defense” which actually means “shots fired in a self-defense event”.

There are some cases pending transcription that I’m going to be evaluating over the following days.

Meanwhile, the comments are open, tell us what you are thinking, what you’d like to hear more about, what you’ve heard to much about.

Spread the love

By awa

2 thoughts on “Friday Feedback”
  1. Just saw that the Firearms Policy Center is suing to overturn Chevron Defense and about did a jig.

    Other n that no new notes yall are hitting it out of the park giving a variety of topics and interests.

  2. An interesting thought occurred to me. Channeling my inner-lawyer (IANAL warning):

    First, assume the anti-gun lawyers’ claims are correct:
    1. Firearms and magazines are only “in use” for self-defense if fired.
    2. “Large-capacity magazines” (LCMs) are only “in use” if more than 10 shots are fired without reloading.

    Now, assume a heavily-Blue state with the anti-gunners’ wish list (e.g. California), which requires a magazine-disconnect mechanism (MDM), so that a gun can only be fired if a magazine is inserted.

    Given those assumptions, suppose now that a gun owner uses a handgun with a (statutorily illegal in the state) 16-round magazine in otherwise-lawful home- or self-defense, and only fires six shots.

    The question is, was a LCM used, and can the gun owner be charged for that?

    I posit in this situation, no, he/she cannot be charged for using a LCM. The handgun has a MDM, so there must have been some kind of magazine “in use” (#1 above), but a LCM is only “in use” if more than 10 rounds are fired without reloading (#2 above). It logically follows, therefore, that because fewer than 10 rounds were fired, the 16-round magazine “in use” must not be a LCM. Thus, the gun owner cannot be charged under that statute.

    An unintended consequence of #1 and #2 above, which we all know are utterly ridiculous.

Comments are closed.