search
top

Lots of Good Ideas on Magazines

In the event that Carolyn McCarthy’s magazine ban starts moving through Congress, some readers have come up with some good ideas on how to prove ownership of magazines already owned. The best magazines to own, in this instance, would be the ones that are stamped from the original assault weapons ban, because their date of manufacture can at least be unambiguously established. The greater issue is proving possession before the ban. You can do photographs, but remember that the burden is on you to prove you fall under the exception, not on the government to prove your possession is illegal, because it’s illegal by default.

I can think of a few things that could work, namely getting an etching tool and sequentially numbering all of your magazines, then taking a high resolution photo of each etching. If you do it by hand, the pattern should be unique and difficult to reproduce. Digitally signing all the photos should take care of time and authenticity issues.

But really, there comes a point when it just gets ridiculous, and you have to accept that we’re all potential victims, and just take the risk. I have no intention of jumping through these hoops if this bill passes. If the government wants to try to say I didn’t possess any of my magazines before the date, they are free to try to make a case. When it gets to the point the government is routinely putting good people in prison, the time is fast approaching when people should start questioning its legitimacy, and whether it’s time for the people to withdraw their consent to be governed by it.

19 Responses to “Lots of Good Ideas on Magazines”

  1. Mobo says:

    They can’t prosecute everybody all at once.

  2. Anon says:

    If it passes, and they want to proceed with prosecutions at any level, the .gov will be moving into territory where the wookie suits come out of the closet.

    I don’t think any of us – including the.gov – want to go there, but I also don’t think the .gov is smart enough to know that.

  3. Pyrotek85 says:

    How many of your other personal possessions can you really prove you own? So much for innocent until proven guilty.

  4. jdberger says:

    I like the hand done serial number idea.

    Everyone starts with sn# HR308-1, then HR308-2, etc.

    Let the government unscramble that mess.

  5. There is really only one way I can think of proving it. Which is to uniquely mark each magazine, then take a photograph. Then file an official copyright record of said photograph. The only other option I can think of is to take photo with them in front of a large public calendar.

    The result, being an official documenting of the photograph before the ban. Otherwise, most anything is suspect. A photographic print really bears no proof. It doesn’t have a time stamp. Digital photos do, but are easily modified, and therefore could be dismissed as evidence.

    The last resort is to hide your magazines, like up McCarthy’s butt. I’m just saying….

    I hate laws that make people criminals retroactively, even more than I hate laws that make things illegal by generation. (ie: NFA, and their restriction of automatics made after 1986. Such laws really make things illegal. They’re just designed to do so slowly so people don’t object. In 1986, that wasn’t an issue. You could buy every fully auto rifle made. In 2010, they’re so scarce that you can’t buy one unless you are upper-middle class. And in 2030, only the upper crust will be able to afford fully automatic rifles.) It’s a slow-ban.

  6. VariableFeedback says:

    One option is to mail yourself the pictures of your uniquely identified magazines, and then keep that envelope sealed. The postmark serves as a proof of the date.

  7. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “Gun owners aren’t supposed to prove their innocence; they’re supposed to go to the gulag! That’s why the law talks about ten years in prison, but it doesn’t say anything about how to prove you’re innocent.
    The private keeping and bearing of arms is such an affront to the authority of the Marxist state that it merits the death penalty. We’re only going with the ten-year prison term to help shoehorn the law into place. We’ll add the death penalty later.
    Oh, and your elaborate schemes to prove your innocence will be ruled inadmissible in court, because, like I said, you’re not supposed to prove you’re innocent, you’re supposed to go to the gulag. We commies love to send people to the gulag. It’s like an identity/heritage thing with us. Carolyn McCarthy is truly one of our own – she’s got that gulag fever!”

  8. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, I’m shocked, I say, just shocked. I thought you were a law-abiding guy. Are you really one of those bad-laws-be-damned characters?

  9. AntiCitizenOne says:

    “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. ”

    Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr.

  10. Sebastian says:

    No man is obligated to obey an immoral law. Any law that makes criminals out of millions of Americans is an immoral law.

  11. Pat says:

    It makes criminals out of retired M1 Carbine collectors as well. These carbines were issued from a Government established organization (CMP) with 15rd USGI magazines.

  12. mike says:

    I wonder if there is a cheap place to incorporate or come up with some other legal fiction, where you could create an LLC or something that owns 1-5 mags, and then you could transfer that LLC to your heart’s content. Not that we should EVER let it get that far, I mean we have votes in this country still.

  13. Sebastian says:

    Transfer is prohibited. Doesnt matter how you do it.

  14. mike says:

    Transfer of suppressors is also prohibited, unless that suppressor is held by an LLC. You sell the LLC and the transfer takes place legally because it was the LLC who owned the suppressor, and not the member(s).

  15. Sebastian says:

    NFA is different. There’s no law against possession of a machine gun, unless it’s manufactured after May 19, 1986. So it’s like other property a corporation can own. McCarthy’s bill also bans possession, except under exemption. The Gun Control Act defines “person” as corporte entities, so this may work.

  16. Sebastian says:

    I should note, you’d need to do this before it passed. The law takes effect immedeatly on passage. There’s no grace period.

  17. mikeb302000 says:

    Sebastian, Isn’t “immoral” too strong a word to use when discussing magazine capacity? That makes you sound like those nutty 3%ers.

  18. Sebastian says:

    It is immoral to pass a law that has the potential to send millions of otherwise law abiding Americans to prison for 10 years. We have enough of that shit already with the drug war, and most drug offenses other than being a big time dealer won’t land you ten years in club fed.

  19. karrde says:

    wrt “photo in front of large public calendar”.

    If you can find a newspaper with a prominent headline or date, that might work.

    Of course, this whole thing begins to feel like the “Jews in the Attic” test to me.

top