Previous Post
Next Post


In a logical and just society laws would be designed to punish bad actions, not try to predict the future and punish people for merely having scary looking objects that might possibly be used in the commission of a crime. The first time I was exposed to malum prohibitum laws was when I started picking locks in my spare time and found that lock picks were deemed similarly evil and dangerous tools that lawmakers decided to ban (rather than simply prosecuting burglaries). Last year Colorado passed a law making the mere possession of a “high capacity” magazine a crime, and now we’ve seen the first arrest of someone under that statute . . .

From The Coloradoan:

The man accused of threatening to burn down a college campus building in Fort Collins has been charged with illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine, marking the first time the charge has been filed in Northern Colorado since controversial legislation was signed into law more than two years ago.

The Larimer County District Attorney filed the charge last week against 29-year-old David Moscow, who was arrested after a psychologist reported him to police and said he was making threats about shooting a security guard and burning down a building at Front Range Community College if administrators didn’t re-enroll him, arrest documents show.

I’m not entirely unhappy that this guy is off the streets. Threatening to shoot people and burn down buildings if you don’t get re-enrolled at college isn’t something that we want to promote and it’s probably best if he gets some professional help before being released back into the wild. That said, they could have had the exact same impact on this person’s life without tacking on the “high capacity” magazine charge. This is the perfect example of a feel-good gun control law simply making already illegal actions just slightly more illegal-er: he was already being arrested for other crimes, the magazine charge wasn’t required for his arrest and will only make his life worse.

What makes this slightly more interesting to watch is the grandfather clause issue. Magazines manufactured and possessed prior to July 1st 2013 are 100% legal, which means in order to make their case the prosecution will need to establish precisely when the magazine was purchased and whether the individual charged bought it more recently. Exactly how they go about doing that will give us an idea of how they plan on prosecuting others in the future.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This is a bit short on facts…let me extrapolate a little bit here…he was making “threats” – to a psychologist? Perhaps “his” psychologist? It will be interesting to see how this one develops.

    • I took that as a given, perhaps its not. His psychologist reported him for specific threats of violence, which is not a violation of the client-shrink confidentiality standard as it was a precursor to a specific criminal act.

      In other words, he (she?) had a duty to report him to prevent imminent harm to himself and others.

      That said, the underlying message being proclaimed here is – Don’t ever talk to a shrink. I know that’s not the truth, but that’s the de-facto message. Talk to a shrink – lose your guns, get reported, get committed, etc..

      I’m not sure what the alternative is, but right now we are discouraging mentally ill people from seeking treatment.

      • The only prudent alternative, as has been the case seen the dawn of time, is to only talk to people you trust. It’s about time even those poor saps indoctrinated by the progressive machine, realized a state supplied credential in no way should engender trust at all.

      • I am thinking the lesson here is actually “Don’t threaten to kill people and burn down buildings.”

    • I’m pretty sure a psychologist has the ability (maybe even duty) to report a patient they feel is making credible threats to injure another person.

    • There’s no serial numbers on magazines, and they were all grandfathered in, weren’t they? This may not be the plaintiff we hoped for, but this law needs to be fought for disgusting travesty that it is.

      • PMAGS have date of manufacture on them. Be careful, dropping them will scratch the little piece of it and you might not know when it was made…

    • Rule of thumb: never talk to a mental health professional. Patient confidentiality doesn’t apply if they decide to snitch on you for something you say in anger during a session. All the “but I didn’t mean it like that” in the world won’t save you if the courts decide to go after you.

      You’re better off spilling your troubles to your friend, a bartender or a stripper. The stripper’s getting paid for her time, probably doesn’t want to get messed up with the cops any more than you do, and she’s almost certainly easier on the eyes than your average shrink.

      • FINALLY! I have been struggling to make a plausible excuse for throwing money at strippers! “No, it isn’t prurient interests, I’m getting psychological therapy.”

  2. The first few prosecutions will be of someone that no one really wants to defend. Like this guy. That’ll be enough to set a precedent, then when John Doe, ordinary person gets charged…well, it will be harder to get the law overturned then.

    • Like Miranda?

      It bears as a good reminder to all those out there that seem to think we can pick and choose what court cases get called to set precedent for our rights.

      Indeed, many of the important cases that continue to be used to protect us from over-reaches involved defendants nobody would WANT to defend.

    • This one seems like a bad one to defend. We’d rather wait for someone more like us to defend.

      STOP this foolishness. Another brother needs our support, and you dicker about his worthiness. Or not.

      What did Jesus say? “As ye do unto the least of us, so ye do unto me.”

      If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. Either we swim together, or we sink separately. Some among us seek to divide us. You’ll have a load of that if you can’t get your heads straight!!!!

      • The statist sh!theads who made and passed this law are the same sh!theads who will vilify all gun owners for defending this alleged psycho. Some anti-gunners aren’t stupid. At the top levels, they are quite savvy at manipulating low information voters. Not saying the antis shouldn’t be fought at every level, but they meant to give us an uphill battle with this case.

        • Although this guy sounds like a legitimate nut case, most of these are going to be law abiding citizens that legally bought guns or magazines before the laws were made. They will not recognize the “Grandfather clause” in time, and the sad fact is these laws will not stop any mass shootings.

      • If what they say is true then this guy has enough against him to sink all by himself.
        By adding this charge they are probably hoping to set a precedent, so when they pick up people only on this charge they can say “well it stuck in this previous case so it must be a real crime!”.

        Not getting the record clear now means alot of otherwise innocent gun owners will suffer later.

        • The authorities might want to badger this guy into pleading guilty to a bogus charge (as in the gun owner has a hi-cap magazine lacking the required date stamp…mags purchased outside Colorado may not have a date stamp), but pleads guilty to the lowest charge. This would result in pleading guilty to a violation that is not a violation, but results in a big win for the gun grabbers. Once the precedent is set, the authorities will use it to illegally punish law-abiding citizens, until someone has the money to take the case through the full appeal cycle (years). But by then, the grabbers will have cowed the public into accepting even more restrictions because the proof lies in all the people illegally convicted.

    • Chances are; unless this guy confesses to purchasing the magazines after July 2013, or there is evidence (credit card statements, date stamps, video recording of purchase…) the D.A.’s office will likely drop the magazine charges.

      • based on what i read about the doin’s up in colorado, the prosecutors are salivating at the chance to destroy anyone who owns guns. seems a chance to prove the mag ban is viable and enforceable would go a long way to shutting down gun owners and support organizations. my money is on the craven district attorneys.

        • All the hoop-law this will bring in the courts and the media, the excitement among lawyers and prosecutors, the convicting of mostly law abiding citizens that legally purchased guns or magazines before the ban, the wasted court time and money, the infringement on self defense rights, it will do nothing to stop the criminals from mass murdering innocent citizens.

          • gun control legislation/laws are not about reducing crime, or gun deaths (especially among that inconvenient little bunch of gangbangers and innercity thugs who just kill-off mostly the right people). the gun grabbers want to be left alone to believe since they are nice persons, and only go where nice persons go, removing guns from nice places (because no guns allowed) will keep the nice people from waking up to a real life horror story.

        • Well, no. Almost all of the sheriffs in the state have sued to get the law thrown out (Denver and Boulder opted out). Larimer county is still conservative enough that this DA would be out of a job if the guy arrested had not been dangerous and had had a standard 17 round Glock 17/19 magazine, instead of a 30 round AR-15 magazine. For one thing, it is extremely hard to explain why cops can have 17 round magazines, while civilians are limited to 15 rounds. Except in maybe the 2nd federal circuit, this would be far from surviving increased Constitutional scrutiny. I will say though that the Fort Collins area is headed in the wrong direction, being thrown into Jered Polis’ Congressional District with Boulder (he is apparently the only married LBGTxyz dude in Congress).

        • I can assure you Larimer County Colorado loves their guns. You can bring mags from out of state just don’t sell them. Possession is not illegal.

          • colorado is now, or soon will be california-east. won’t matter which county. thinking the individual counties would not welcome californication overlooks the power of the residents of the single major city to be able to control the rest of the state.

            it will be interesting to watch developments, because in a state with two major cities, texas is probably not far behind.

      • They may take a page from NJ play book and this is assuming the magazines are grandfathered in. A liberal judge could refuse to allow the grand fathering portion of the magazine law to be read in court, keeping the jury ignorant of the law forcing them to find the defendant guilty on the charge.

        • From the Colorado law:
          “A large-capacity magazine that is manufactured in Colorado after July 1, 2013, must include a permanent stamp or marking indicating that the large-capacity magazine was manufactured or assembled after July 1, 2013. The stamp or marking must be legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast upon the outer surface of the large-capacity magazine. The Colorado Bureau of Investigation may create rules for implementing this requirement, including additional identification information on each large-capacity magazine.4
          Exceptions – A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if they owned the large-capacity magazine on or prior to July 1, 2013, and maintain continuous possession of the magazine.5 When a person charged with illegal possession of a large-capacity magazine claims to fall under this exception, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove otherwise.6”

          The burden of proof would normally be difficult for prosecutors, but in what seems to be California-east, it is likely an aggressive DA and judge can combine to overcome any potential impediment to conviction (even if the gun owner did not have a high-capacity magazine with a date stamp IAW the state law).

      • I guess I am missing something. If purchase is illegal after a certain date, wouldn’t they not be for sale after that date? If there are none on the dealer’s shelf, he could not have bought one. If he bought one out of state, where there is no such idiotic law, nobody there cares enough to video his purchase, because it is legal! The law sounds completely unenforceable!

        As an aside, can an owner of such a mag sell it to another person, still grandfathered?

      • It doesn’t matter when he bought them, the law specifically states that commission of a felony while in possession of a mag > 15 is a class 6 felony. And the felony he committed is possession of a weapon by a convicted felon.

    • I know some LEOs in LA, the only time they ever use the ‘legally defined high capacity mag’ law is against gang-bangers. It’s one more thing to throw on the list of charges, and one the DAs are more likely to include for more pressure/longer sentences in the inevitable plea bargains. LA just banned even grandfathered standard capacity magazines and I’m not sure if they’ll continue to ignore them- i.e. turn a blind eye to them or just assume they’ve been plugged to be 10 rounders for anybody else they run across. Haven’t got a chance to ask any of them yet.

  3. We don’t know what we said or done, for all we know the psychologist asked “what are your plans if you can’t re-enroll?” and he could have laughed and said ‘I dunno shoot someone and burn the place down’ as an off colored joke.

    • There are times and places for jokes, such as this, the shrink’s office isn’t one of them.

      He likely wasn’t there because he is witty.

  4. Most polymer magazines have a date code molded into them. So post-bans can be identified. But GI style mags, not so much.

    • That date code, if I am not mistaken, is just a date stamp for when the mould was created (sort of like a lot number on a box of ammo); not a precise date for when the mag was popped out of it. Which is completely fine by me, as that mould will be pumping out mags with a past date for probably quite a while and barring them subpoenaing this guy’s credit card records (assuming he didnt pay cash) they have no real other way of proving when the mag was created or purchased. Unless of course he just confesses it or something.

      Agree with the others, the first case was almost destined to be someone no one wants to defend.

      • ok, suppose the arestee bought:
        – mag spring
        – ammunition follower
        – mag body (metal)
        – mag base plate

        all at different times? it would be a hoot watching the political police/prosecutor unraveling that one.

    • Crap, you are right, for PMAGs. I’m guessing it is for quality control. You get a defective one, tell Magpul, return it, and they use the date code to figure out when the issue occurred and if there’s a need for a recall.

      The USGI mags I have have date codes stamped on them, though they are the quality ones. I’m guessing the crappy mags don’t have date codes?

  5. The first malum prohibitum law most folks are exposed to is violating the speed limit, which, while not harmful in and of itself, is widely believed to cause harmful results.

    • Actually, I believe that if you pass a test and have your car inspected, you should be able to go up to 15 over except in a school zone.

      • That makes sense, since speed limits are typically set 10-15 mph lower than the ambient traffic speed. Or by using the lowest-common-denominator approach, which is the safest speed for a myopic octogenarian driving a 1954 Plymouth with bald tires that was last serviced in 1978.

      • I don’t get it, no. The violation ought to be the injurious act itself, not some presumed potentiator. Otherwise, all you’ve got is a low-tech and highly subjective “Minority Report.”

    • That’s what I thought until I started seeing high speed crashes and fatalities. Increased speed means increased kinetic energy, less control and longer stopping distances. I’m against cops hiding and speed cameras, but folks who can’t see a fully-marked black and white behind them and slow down are likely the same ones who can’t safely speed.

      • Hope you’ll pardon the comparison, but your rationale sounds similar to the Brady Campaign’s and their ilk – simply substitute “gun owners” for “speeders.”

      • And the thing with speed, kinetic energy is velocity squared. So those extra 10mph really do add a lot more than you’d think.

      • Or… about blasting PAST a state trooper in a fully marked car who is already doing 5 over the posted limit of 65, in moderately heavy traffic. Yeah the idiot got a meet and greet.

    • I would argue that it fits in the broad category of “endangerment” laws – i.e. it’s an action that might not immediately result in harm, but is very likely to do so. Similar to DUI, or intentionally aiming a gun at someone (but not shooting). We can argue about the specific limits, but I think everyone would agree that at some point it’s just dangerous to anyone else on the road at the time, period.

      • All fun, but wait a minute. Speed limits are not different for 1954 Plymouths vs brand new Ferraris, so arguments about less control or longer braking distance are definitely not being considered. And if there is no one else on the road, the citation is the same, endangering “others” is not a payer, either. The one issue which does pass all the tests is “follow the money”, it is taxation, with some opportunity to intimidate and rule over others thrown in.

        • I’m fine with the idea of speed limits being specifically tailored to the person (depending on how well they do on some tests), the car, the road, the environmental conditions etc, in principle. Basically, compute some sort of “safety index” for any given combination, and apply it to the posted limit to get the real value. It’s just pretty damn hard to implement.

          Yes, I know that it’s also abused heavily, especially by smaller towns that use speeding tickets as one of their major revenue streams.

          As far as speeding when no-one is present – fine, but if we remove the automatic cameras, then by definition, if you get caught for speeding, then someone was present (i.e. the cop who wrote the ticket).

    • See my above comment regarding Miranda.

      The test case “we are looking for” does not exist. Or, rarely does.

      The case facts and details of the defendant in many important cases are not “ideal.”

      • To remind, ACLU has been very successful at establishing firm boundaries around 1A by defending – in a court – the free speech rights of KKK and neo-Nazi organizations to say things like “vengeance against niggers, Jews and their supporters” in public speeches.

        • Libertarians always play the nazi card because they agree with this speech correct?
          But they don’t support the speech of Christians do they? Because they don’t support the right of people to say things they disagree with.
          Black christians have not gotten the support of the aclu when their rights were violated.
          Also the aclu does not support the individual right to keep and bear arms. You can watch their spokeswoman say so on you tube.
          How does it help black people when white libertarians support cross burning on private black property?

          • ACLU types are most definitely NOT libertarians – they’re the precise opposite, in fact. Like Obamao, they use our civil liberties to destroy traditional American and Western values, not to uphold and solidify them.

            • What are those “traditional values” that ACLU has been destroying, I wonder? Racial segregation and excluding non-whites from voting and from the political process in general? Putting people in prison merely because of their expressed political beliefs (such as they did to e.g. communists)? Jailing people for anti-war propaganda?

          • I can’t speak for libertarians, seeing how I am not one. However, I do support free speech for everyone, including Christians.

            What I don’t support, and what ACLU doesn’t support – and what many right-wingers incorrectly identify as a free speech issue – is government employees acting in their official capacity promoting a certain religion. This includes public prayer while officiating over some ceremony in an official capacity as an agent of state, placement of monuments and other exhibits that are effectively religious propaganda on public property and especially official state offices (Ten Commandments monuments on courthouses etc), and other things like that. Basically, when the exercise of said freedom of speech would unambiguously violate separation of church and state.

            If you can point an example of freedom of speech of some Christian being violated in the USA that does not fall in the above category, then we can continue this conversation.

            • The “separation of church and state” is a figment of Justice Brennan’s febrile imagination, which anti-faith activists have transformed into a secular article of faith. Not only does it appear nowhere in the Constitution, it’s a perverse corruption of the Framers’ intent. If that’s your premise, the “conversation” is over before it begins.

              • The conversation wasn’t with you, so you don’t get to call the shots on whether it’s over on not.

                But generally speaking, yes, I’m not particularly interested with debating politics with the local Christian equivalent of Islamist fundies, who believe that the Founders have created, or intended to create, a Christian state founded on Biblical morality, and want to “return” to that by enshrining their faith in law and using the power of the state to proselytize.

              • that’s just so wrong. everyone knows jefferson and madison declared that an almost physical wall must exist. both were vehement opponents to mixing government and religion. just look:
                “The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison
                It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

                Jefferson’s actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist “a wall of separation between church and state.” In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a “national” religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.”

                and there’s more; check it out.

              • Truth be told, on this matter, I don’t actually particularly care about what the Founders really intended (and most likely there wasn’t really any such thing shared between all of them wrt religion, since they had wildly different faiths and beliefs). The modern interpretation of the 1A is strictly superior in that regard in any case, because it is more broad, and provides for more freedom, not less freedom (more people are free to worship as they like without interference of any form from the state).

              • the superior position you honor brought us to where the government makes all religious conversation in/on public property (and now private property) is virtually banned because government is not neutral (its first responsibility), but hostile. now, it is becoming illegal to act upon religious beliefs (free exercise thereof) in private transactions between offeror and buyer. your wall is not positive, not freedom, not productive. it is restrictive, oppressive and intolerant.

                but hey, this is a forum about guns and stuff like that.

        • “I don’t actually particularly care about what the Founders really intended”

          That sounds exactly like how a lot of anti-2A-ers begin their statements…the ole “bunch of dead guys from over 200 years ago” argument.

          We don’t get to pick which aspects of fundamental, natural liberties we choose to defend. We are either in it for all of them or we are hypocrites. Or, the other phrase I heard a lot growing up to describe people that talk out of both sides of their mouths…”lying sack of sh1t.”

          As is often said around here, freedom is hard. It’s messy. It means shutting the h311 up about what the other guy is doing even when you don’t like what he’s doing.

          The First Amendment is under just as much attack these days as the Second. We’ve seen “First Amendment Zones” and make no mistake…FREE practice of faith is soundly opposed. Freedom of assembly and protest is under regulation and attack, too.

          The Statists love it when we bicker and bite at each other. They love it when they can get the 2A crowd hammering on the 1A crowd and vice versa. They are ecstatic when 4A, 5A and 6A take a beating in the name of “Law and Ordah!”

          The irony is it is the Statist mindset that prompted the writing of all ten of the amendments to begin with. They are not isolated ideas…they are a consolidated whole. They were an attempt to codify limiting the power and very role of government.

          • It is the eternal battle between good and evil; it will never end.

            If you believe in “big government” (no matter how benign) to solve individual problems, whatever you tell yourself you are a statist. You know who you are, what you are.

          • >> We don’t get to pick which aspects of fundamental, natural liberties we choose to defend.

            You’re correct, but what does this have to do with the Founders? They weren’t prophets, just people, who were fallible and made plenty of mistakes. I mean, seriously, the guys have left slavery legal, even though it goes against so many fundamental, natural liberties it’s not even funny. They were also fine with treating women as property of men, etc. So why exactly should we follow them when it comes to expanding the scope of the state (as in this case, by allowing the state to encourage and promote a specific religion)?

            That, by the way, is a generic problem with many on the right side of the political spectrum. You guys talk about natural rights and all that, but then for some reason insist that Constitution is perfect in that regard. As any human creation, much less one that’s over 200 years old, it’s not perfect or infallible in that regard, and is certainly not the definitive and authoritative guide to natural rights. Yet you always cite it as gospel.

            • Leftists insist on making the perfect an enemy of the good, which is an unattainable standard. They’re also prone to the logical fallacy of condemning previous generations according to current values, instead of contemporaneous ones.

              The essential genius of the Constitution is it can be perfected through the consensual amendment process, instead of repetitive cycles of civil war and revolution.

              • Nobody is saying anything about condemning the previous generations. Quite the opposite, for their time, the Founders were super-radicals in a good way as far as I’m concerned.

                But the point that my opponents seem to be trying to make is that because the Founders did something in a certain way, we should keep doing it in that way. Which, to me, is obvious bunk.

              • I suppose you could call it judgmental in a sense of “why would you want to take everything these people ever said as Gospel?”, but I would argue that it is a valid scope for judgment. I’m not proposing holding a court to hold Washington, say, a criminal for owning slaves, or even condemning him for the same; but if we’re holding him (or any other Founder) as a role model, then we should be conscious about that sort of stuff, because it should definitely not be part of that model.

            • What will it take to stamp out the ignorance about the founders and slavery?

              Slavery existed. Some of the colonies would never have agreed to union if slavery were abolished. Now what? Suspend the idea of independence, the idea of a union of sovereign states, the hope to remain a viable nation? Oh yes, too many spoiled children in adult clothes will wail about how it would have been better that the Confederation founder and fail, rather than tolerate slavery? Slaves were counted as 3/5s a person in order to limit the number of representatives from slave-holding states. Else, importing more slaves would be an infinite source of increased legislative power. We face the same measure today, except the government is counting illegals as legitimate residents in determining the number of representatives from each state. Interesting the so-called abolitionists of today welcome swelling voter ranks with non-citizens in order to grow a government that is bent on turning citizens into subjects.

              • What ignorance? Everything that you’ve said only supports my point. Founders were idealists, but they were also pragmatists (and had widely different ideas, for that matter – some of them abhorred slavery, some thought that it was a temporary thing that would pass on its own, some thought it to be the rightful order of things). Consequently, they’ve made a lot of decisions that were not necessarily morally or ethically perfect, but were the only realistic option in the circumstances. A lot of these, like the Three Fifths Compromise that you reference, went directly into the text of the Constitution.

                My point, again, is that we should understand the works and deeds of the Founders, including the Constitution itself, as a product of that compromise. Which means that it is not perfect, either in general, or in relation to the present circumstances – since it captures a compromise that was made necessary by circumstances of the time it was written, centuries ago, which have changed radically since then.

                So to argue in favor of some ethical (as opposed to legalistic) point on the grounds that “Constitution says so” is silly.

              • Not being as intelligent as any of the founders, I would not deign to suggest where we should start lining-out provisions of the constitution that are antiquated, irrelevant, out-dated, Yes, there have been amendments beyond the BOR. Not sure one can objectively say all have strengthened the power of the people to control/constrain government. The founders understood uniquely that governments and tyrants never shrink voluntarily, that government is an evil necessity that must be tightly leashed. Modern ideas leash the people, and unleash government. The more loose we wish the constitution to be, the more government encroaches on our lives and freedom (political correctness comes to mind). The founders would have never agreed that thought police (hate crimes?) were essential to the good regulating of government. It is all to easy to create exceptions to standards, until there is no standard left.

                Which parts of the original thinking would you be willing to remove, and live with the results….forever?

              • To reiterate, the “original thinking” included slavery. Do you really think there’s any doubt that getting rid of that was a bad idea?

                Anyway, this whole thread started with a very specific thing, namely whether the modern interpretation of the meaning of “wall of separation between church and state” is better than what Founders may have originally intended. I posit that it is strictly superior because it provides more freedom for private individuals, not less freedom. Yes, it does so at the cost of less freedom for the government, by preventing it from doing anything that can be perceived as promoting one religion in favor of others. And yes, this also means that the government agents acting in their official capacity as such have their freedom restricted – but, of course, so does any other limitation on the power of the state.

                (Some people who commented seem to have a confused understanding of this, because someone has actually brought up the prohibition on private discrimination on religious grounds. But this has nothing to do with the First Amendment rights – it exists solely because of the Civil Rights Act, so it’s a purely legislative invention, and it never claimed any constitutional grounding. The issue of whether CRA was constitutional or not is orthogonal to the question of whether government should be fully prohibited from engaging in any sort of religious practice.)

              • Then under your philosophy, does the “wall” permit “free exercise thereof”? Or only “therof” approved by whichever political group is in power at the time? If a wall is preferred, it must be absolute both ways, or one is simply practicing intellectual and political dishonesty.

              • Yes, I believe that it should be absolute in both directions.

                (So, yes, the provisions of CRA that prohibit private discrimination on the grounds of religion are contrary to that.)

              • Thank you for that.

                As I read and see, the “wall” does not ensure government is neutral toward religion, but antagonistic toward it. Those who heartily support the “wall” mean it to drive religion out of every public/private interaction, including law and education.

              • It may look that way, but mostly it’s because, historically, it has been religion (and specifically Christianity, often even specific denominations of it) promoted by the government, not atheism. I know some people believe that e.g. teaching evolution in school is “promoting atheism”, but I personally find that argument ridiculous – it’s a question of science, not faith. And if you ask e.g. certain Saudi clerics, then teaching that Earth is round and goes around the Sun is also “promoting atheism” and is offensive to Islam.

                So yes, I do want to drive religion out of the sphere pertaining to government, which includes law and public education. What this means, mind you, is not that voters or candidates should be prohibited to express religious views, or use them to guide their choices. But there should never be a law enacted that prohibits something solely because some religion perceives it as bad; and most certainly, laws shouldn’t have references to any religious scriptures or dogmas, other than for illustrative purposes. The inclusion of “… under God” back in 1950s was also a blatant violation of that principle, the one that unfortunately persists to this day unchallenged.

                OTOH, if the state decreed that all schools should teach actual atheism (as in, there’s no God etc) – that would definitely be an infringement, and I would be strongly against it. Similarly, I strongly dislike the way they implemented it in France, what is usually referred as laïcité – where they e.g. ban students from wearing all sorts religious symbols in schools, for the same reasons. And if some courthouse somewhere were to put a plaque on a wall saying “There is no God”, I would react the same to it as I do to all those Ten Commandment monuments in courthouses.

              • Does not teaching that only science is a valid world view mean that, de facto, belief in any diety is prohibited from expression in a government place? Since government has a near 100% monopoly on k-12 education, is that not government being hostile toward religion? Is that not teaching atheism? Are you convinced that teachers are so altruistic and honest that they would teach the scientific method, but declare that faith as an explanation for things not de-constructable by science is an un-accpetable choice, not to be expressed in the class room?

                BTW, without moral absolutes (belief in a “Creator”), our founding documents have not useful meaning beyond the futile musings of man? If there are no absolutes, then only opinions are left, which cannot justify any restriction on human behavior. You and a crowd of friends might believe murder is wrong, but if there is no moral imperative, you express an opinion, and when me and my friends rule the government, we can legitimately make murder a non-crime. If there are no absolute standards beyond human vanity, then we are left to a society ruled by whim (or 51% majority, if you like).

              • >> Does not teaching that only science is a valid world view mean that, de facto, belief in any diety is prohibited from expression in a government place?

                I’m not aware of anyone teaching that. Mind you, I don’t think they should teach those other world views in school, either. Let the schools teach the scientific method (without asserting that it’s the one true methodology, or asserting that it covers everything) and the conclusions that stem from it, and let people who believe in other things teach those other things where, when and how they see fit.

                I don’t think this has much to do with religion, though. I mean, scientific method is not inherently anti-religious – it’s a-religious, as in Laplace’s famous “I had no need of that hypothesis” wrt God, even though the guy was a self-proclaimed deist. Granted, insofar as it establishes the facts about such parts of the universe that are subject to its methodology, it can come into conflict with religions claiming a different set of facts. For example, if Hellenic pagans believe that their gods dwell in flesh and blood on top of Mt Olympus, and we conduct a scientific experiment by climbing there and finding no gods, and report that fact, then clearly we’re in conflict with a religious claim. Similarly, if some Christian believes in a hyper-literalist interpretation of the Bible that makes them conclude that Earth is a few thousand years old and is located in the center of the universe, and we use scientific method to establish that the age of the Earth is somewhere on the order of several billion of years, that is also a conflict. But I think that, just as objective verifiable truth is always a defense against libel, so objective verifiable truth is always a defense against any claim of religious discrimination.

                In other words, it is not discriminatory to promote a point of view that is factual. But on topics that are inherently out of scope for verifiable objective truth (such as anything to do with morality and ethics, or things like soul, miracles and other supernatural phenomena that are postulated to be outside of laws of nature and hence not experimentally verifiable), there should be no promotion. Simply put, the schools should teach evolution and plate tectonics, but should not teach that there is no God or no soul.

                Of course, there will always be a bias, because, as you’ve said, teachers are people, and people have biases. This goes both ways: today, it’s not uncommon to find a classroom in America where a teacher, when faced with having to teach evolution, would preface it with a statement to the students to the effect that it’s all lies that they’re mandated to teach, and that the truth is in the Bible. It’s unfortunate, but also unavoidable. We should mitigate this by treating such cases as violations of the separation of church and state and prosecuting the perpetrators accordingly.

                >> BTW, without moral absolutes (belief in a “Creator”), our founding documents have not useful meaning beyond the futile musings of man? If there are no absolutes, then only opinions are left, which cannot justify any restriction on human behavior. You and a crowd of friends might believe murder is wrong, but if there is no moral imperative, you express an opinion, and when me and my friends rule the government, we can legitimately make murder a non-crime. If there are no absolute standards beyond human vanity, then we are left to a society ruled by whim (or 51% majority, if you like).

                Your mistake is in assuming that “only opinions” cannot justify a restriction on human behavior. That’s where me and most atheist moral relativists would disagree. Simply put, while recognizing that morality is subjective (and hence so are the “natural laws”), we don’t disclaim the right to judge others based on our own subjective morality. Or, in other words, my morality is not objectively better than yours, but as far as I’m concerned, it is better, and that’s the value judgment that matters for determining my actions that affect others.

                And yes, this does mean that in practice, the majority rules. But that is simply objectively true – even if natural rights are truly God-given, the majority can (and most everywhere on this planet, actually does) override them by force, and unless God intervenes to set things right, the objective reality is that majority will get its way. For the lack of God (in my perspective), it is what it is. The real benefit of the constitutional system as opposed to straightforward tyranny of the majority is that it captures the notion of “live and let live” and “agree to disagree” – so the majority support for it comes not necessarily from supporting all the same beliefs, but from supporting the right for each of us to hold to different beliefs. If that support ever disappears, then Constitution truly will be “just a piece of paper”.

                Again, I personally like those ideas, and will fight to uphold them if necessary even in the face of the tyrannical majority – moral relativism doesn’t mean that you automatically adopt the position of the majority, or generally use it as a moral gauge of your principles.

              • Thank you for making my point. Moral relativism means no morals outside the individual, Granting thus, the right to make relativistic judgement as fit the moment and convenience of the opinion holder, it is immoral for any government to impose any moral order/law. The majority of relativistic moralists do not have a natural right to require anyone else to honor any set of moral declarations. “Majority wins” is not an immutable right of man or nature. Thus, all laws designed to regulate moral behavior (societal norms, whatever that means) are valid only upon those who endorse the law. Resistors are free to disengage without consequence. When relativistic/majority morals come into conflict with other morals, there is no higher power/agent to which to appeal. It is the law of the jungle. People of “good intent” may believe that because they are “good people” whatever morals they live by are good enough for the rest of society, and should be enforced by law and punishment. To which I would borrow a question, “By who’s authority…..” In my judgement (moral view) murder is not wrong. It is simply an expedient way to achieve personal or group goals that I support; even personal goals. When me and my friends take power, we will overturn any law that frustrates a person’s attempts to create for themselves whatever social environment they wish. Your morality has no bearing.

                Thus is the result of no immutable standard. One cannot be morally relativistic and claim there are “natural civil rights of mankind”, because that sets an immutable standard, which is trumped by moral relativism.

                Moral relativism is merely a means whereby we comfort ourselves that we are justified in feeling no guilt for doing things the way we want, regardless.

              • When your rights are infringed, what would you do, in order; and why?

                1. Try to address it through the legal system (courts etc).
                2. Fight against those that infringe them.
                3. Pray to God to intervene and make the others respect your rights.

                I suspect you’d put your faith in #1 and #2 before you resign yourself to #3. As an atheist, I don’t believe in miracles, so for me it’s just #1 and then #2.

                And yes, when you go down to the foundation, it is the law of the jungle; everything else just builds on it, and as Mao said, all power ultimately does come out of the barrel of a gun. That’s exactly why the Second Amendment is helpful: it makes it expensive for would-be tyrants to dominate and force their will on others even if they’re in the majority, and makes it outright impossible if they’re a minority. When individuals can and do fight back, society can only enact and maintain such regulations that command very widespread support. Tyranny of the (super)majority is still possible, but it’s a system better than any alternatives.

              • Actually, I choose all three (“Render unto Ceasar….).

                The Second Amendment calls-out a natural right not recognized (to this day) by the English Crown…the unalienable right of self-defense against individuals and government. The founders declared that certain rights are immutable because they are granted not by any government, but by the Creator. The constitution was designed to constrain government from attempting to interfere. If the founders intended the constitution to be morally relativistic, there would have been no reference to inalienable because if there is no Creator, there are no inalienable rights. The constitution is modified to reflect some changing societal values, but changes touching inalienable rights were never contemplated. An example of a political system without inalienable rights is England, which has no constitution, no reference/appeal to higher law. The rights of English people are fluid and make no claim to embody moral, religious or natural law. As noted, if there is are no rights granted by God, then there are only rights permitted by human governments, making our constitution laughable.

                BTW, just to pull your nose, have you considered that atheists proclaim themselves God? In order to understand/believe/proclaim that there is no God, one must be omnipotent and omnipresent. Only God has those two characteristics.


              • >> As noted, if there is are no rights granted by God, then there are only rights permitted by human governments, making our constitution laughable.

                Nothing is laughable that people are willing to die for, God or no God.

                >> BTW, just to pull your nose, have you considered that atheists proclaim themselves God? In order to understand/believe/proclaim that there is no God, one must be omnipotent and omnipresent. Only God has those two characteristics.

                Atheism in general does not necessarily mean that one believes that there is no God (that would be strong atheism). Atheism rather means that one does not believe there is a God – it’s a rejection of belief, not of God. If there’s factual evidence that God exists, that would be knowledge, not belief, and I would have to accept that.

                (Though omnipresence and omnipotence of God is not something that can have irrefutable proof in the first place, so those are always a matter of belief.)

              • A basic criticism of religious belief is there is no proof (whatever that means) there is a supreme being. If atheism is a rejection of belief, on what is that rejection based? Lack of evidence. Same same. That is to believe without proof is faith.

                BTW, there are numerous scientific “proofs” of the existence of something that cannot be directly observed. This is done by observing the effects of that something on other somethings. This is a belief (believing there is “something” having observed effects, but no direct observation/evidence. An automobile can no more be created by a mindless, unconscious, powerless nature than can a tree. If there is an object without design, chaos dictates that object will degenerate into its elements, and cease to exist as a discrete object. We believe/accept that a building has a designer, even though that designer is no longer visible/observable. We believe in the fact before us having an intent and purpose ordered by the designer (and builders). The amount of random chance that must work in concert to produce the observable world would be considered demented non-sense in any other system of explanation. The belief that there must be something equivalent to the earth we inhabit is belief not founded on observable facts. It is belief that random chance can duplicate itself. If that is true, there is no randomness.

              • >> A basic criticism of religious belief is there is no proof (whatever that means) there is a supreme being. If atheism is a rejection of belief, on what is that rejection based? Lack of evidence. Same same. That is to believe without proof is faith.

                It is a rejection of belief in God, not belief in general.

                There’s no way to construct a system without some core axioms that are fundamentally unproven (to paraphrase, there’s always “the last turtle” on your way down). In scientific methodology, the axioms are constructed by observing the universe, and postulating that if something is repeatedly observed happening the same way, then it’ll keep happening the same way. This is a belief – there’s no inherent reason why it should keep happening – but it seems to be a very productive, pragmatic belief in a sense that so far, things do keep happening that way.

                >> BTW, there are numerous scientific “proofs” of the existence of something that cannot be directly observed. This is done by observing the effects of that something on other somethings. This is a belief (believing there is “something” having observed effects, but no direct observation/evidence

                Close, but not quite. The belief in this case is in axioms of logic, and in causality in general. Once you have those in place, you can build causality chains, and then you only need to experimentally prove the start of the chain through observation – the rest of it follows through the laws of logic.

                And, again, those laws are axioms, but they did not appear out of thin air – we’ve used them numerous times to make working predictions, so there’s a good track record of them working. Doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ll still be working tomorrow, but it seems a safer bet.

                >> If there is an object without design, chaos dictates that object will degenerate into its elements, and cease to exist as a discrete object.

                That’s exactly what the ultimate fate of the universe is likely to be, but it does not work that way on the scale on which we currently operate. Yes, entropy grows in any closed system, which means that we’re progressing towards “maximum disorder” in universe as a whole. But Earth is not a closed system – it receives massive influx of energy from the Sun, and that energy is what permits the localized reversal of entropy, such as the appearance of life and its evolution into more complicated forms. If you look at the entire Earth – Sun system as a whole, though, its entropy is still growing, because for every entropy decrease on Earth, there’s a larger entropy increase in Sun as it “burns out”.

                >> The amount of random chance that must work in concert to produce the observable world would be considered demented non-sense in any other system of explanation.

                Only if you begin with the assumption that the observable world has to be exactly the way it is (which is common for religious philosophies that start with the notion that man must be exactly as he is, and then posit that universe is “created perfect” to allow such a man to exist). In practice, there’s no reason to believe that our world, with all its laws, is the only possibility. It may well be a random statistical fluke, all the way from the Big Bang (where several important but seemingly random asymmetries have defined some fundamental physical laws for the remainder of the life of the universe), and the only reason why we’re wondering why it’s so “perfect” for us is because we are also the product of the same statistical fluke. If things went differently, you might have had universe that couldn’t support life (or even higher organizational forms of matter in general), and then there would be no-one to ponder those questions. Or you could have a universe with radically different forms of matter that would produce equally different forms of life, and then those forms would wonder how the universe happens to be so “perfect” for their being.

                This approach is called the weak anthropic principle – look it up if you want to read some more thorough philosophical treatment of this subject.

              • The foundation of not believing in God is the same as believing there is; faith. No one knows what there was before there was. Believers in a creator take it on faith something caused it. Non-believers take it on faith that nothing caused it. As mentioned, to not believe something because you have no proof is to believe in the non-existence of something, also without proof.

                Not discussing if, if, if. Noted that all the randomness required to produce what is observable here and now (we are here, not in a parallel/alternative universe. All the speculation and if cannot answer the incredible amount of randomness, coordinated and complementary for the world to develop/exist/display what is before us is beyond mathematical calculation. What we are talking about is design/purpose, or magic. If everything is random chance, then there is no reproducibility. Given one cataclysm of randomness created what we experience here, only a blithering idiot would posit that random chance would do it again. Obviously there are zillions of instances in the universe where randomness did not create a second instance of where we are. It boggles the mind to imagine that “somewhere out there” an exact or congruent set of random collisions has or will occur. If we have evidence of so much repeatedly happening (and we do observe a lot of it), why do we not have any other example of a life form “out there”? Do we whistle past the graveyard, comforting ourselves with fancy versios of “it could happen”.

                Observing effects of that which is unseen and believing/accepting/proving the existence of the un-seeable are all around us. Random chance on such a vast scale is not scientifically valid. There are no other examples of a so fine-tuned a system by chance.

                It has been fun, but far afield from where we started. The country was founded on immutable principles that are ageless, or we are foolishly deceived into believing that any document, law or proposition concerning governments and people has relevance beyond the moment. That leaves us with lawlessness as a way of life, with only the choice of which lawless band we wish to subject us to serfdom.


              • Also, how do you know that you’re not “as intelligent as any of the founders”? Quite often, the people who do things are not actually the smartest people – they’re merely the ones who had the guts to do what others have thought about doing all those things, and perhaps more, but were too lazy or too afraid to actually carry it out.

                There clearly were some truly brilliant minds there, like Jefferson. But even they didn’t seem to be of such a high an opinion of themselves as to deem their word to be binding for all the generations to come. Here’s Jefferson himself:

                “The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.–I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, “that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living”: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

                On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.–It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

                Now personally I think that his proposed approach is also way too extreme – a full reboot every 19 years would be ruinous for stability of society and economy, and is not sustainable. But the sentiment expressed here is clear: don’t substitute your own reasoning with dead men’s words. The latter are still immensely valuable as learning materials, and every person who want to participate should at the very least read them. But you owe it to yourself and to everyone around you to do politics subject ultimately only to the needs of the time and the place you’re in, as perceived through the prism of your logic, reason, and ethics.

              • Underneath it all, Jefferson and the lot agreed there were immutable principles (natural law), not subject to change by the electorate. Else, the entire enterprise was foolish, a sham and a waste of good people. If there are no clear, unambiguous standards, then why does anyone think the constitution is any more durable than the latest Justice Of the Peace declaration. Unfortunately, none of the founders are around to ask if in their deliberations (before, during and after), they contemplated the constitution evolving into nothing more than whatever the populace wanted at the moment, including the eradication of those natural rights they sought to prevent the government from taking.

  6. In good ol Massachusetts we still have the AWB in effect from 94. I own a bunch of pre-ban MA legal 30rd mags, they sell them online, at gun shows etc. Most do not have any dates on them, but we have no trouble identifying ones built before 94. There are a few manufacturers who went outta business before 94 so all their mags are OK to own since with one Google search it will show the facts to any LEO or nosey nose. Some like Colt have certain identifying marks on the floor plate which correlate with certain dates of manufacture. There is a website that lists descriptions on most “pre” 94 pre-ban mags-
    I seriously hope that we get a president who is 2a friendly, because the USA is not looking good for gun ownership if not.

    • Who is that guy? So far there are only two possibilities: Rand Paul and Donald Trump. When they are eliminated, there’s no one else, PERIOD.

      • Rand Paul is already a goner, he just refuses to acknowledge it.

        Out of curiosity, why isn’t Ted Cruz on your list? He seems pretty firmly pro-2A to me.

        • Rand Paul has won a couple of straw polls in the last two months, which is a much better indicator of how someone will do in a primary or caucus then national phone polls. Rand Paul’s support is FAR higher than what you’ll hear in the mainstream media because they are counting on telephone polls of “likely Republican voters”, while many of Rand’s supporters are young people and independents who never get called by pollsters. I live in NH, and I’ve literally only been called once and they hung up after I laughed when they asked if I had a positive opinion of Jeb.

        • RP is toast. His non-interventionist policies (currently being implemented via Obama’s lead-from-behind do-nothing policies) doesn’t look very effective to the American public since the rise of ISIS (pardon me…I mean JV team).

  7. The cops/county attorney just typical piling on with every BS charge can dream up. Then can plea bargain rather than actually doing their job in the courtroom. Lazy lawyer syndrome. It’s nationwide.

  8. He was arrested for alleged threats, not a normal cap. mag. He is being charged with possession of a normal cap. Mag. No?
    From what l gather in the article they searched his house after he was arresret, right?

    • I was wrong searched the arrested. But he is a convicted felon and they found “evil guns” so l think the mag is the least of their worries.

      • “I was wrong searched the arrested.”

        Sigh. That’s not even remotely English , and only an idiot can claim he knows what that means.

        If you can’t post in English, I don’t know one you can post in; all of them have syntactical rules that are utterly beyond your understanding.

        • Sir, as you can see l was trying to correct my mistakes, before you even posted this sad remark If you know of a way to edit please, do tell. Its these damn fat thumbs on this phone. I am sorry l have caused you such grief.

        • You sir are an idiot. Just open your flipp’n eyes and scroll up, just a bit. I was trying to correct my mistakes. If you know of a way to “edit” comments, please do tell. Yes, yes, l know proof read before posting.

        • William B,

          Same team, bud! I make plenty of mistakes, too. It’s not always easy to post accurately on a phone, during a TTAG glitch, when your 2 year old is trying to yank fur off of your Weimaraner or when you’re drinking a giant fresh mint mojito.

          When we argue the statists win.

  9. The mag charge will be dismissed.

    We all know they don’t enforce the laws on the book. They just keep adding new ones to infringe upon till everything is unlawful.

  10. This is prosecution 101, pile on the charges and negotiate and plea down as needed to get guilty plea or conviction.

    I once saw a stupid kid charged, by PSP, with Agricultural vandalism (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3309). This dope, while running from the troopers, drove through about 100 yards of a soy field. Of course, this most serious charge was dropped in exchange for a guilty plea on the DUI, fleeing and eluding, and about a dozen other motor vehicle violations.

    • Correct, they just wanted to pile on the charge on top of the other charges. The standard capacity magazine ban law is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor, they would not have been able to arrest him for just the magazine. Would have been a summons. There is some interesting stuff about this, the sheriff for that county is one that is part of the sheriff’s lawsuit trying to undo the magazine ban law. This guy was arrested by local PD, if they dont drop the magazine charge and somehow get it to stick, could prove a thorn in the lawsuits side, as part of their argument the law is unenforceable. Tin foil hats anyone?

  11. Yeah, i heard (16th hand) the prosecutor say he was gonna fry him, and have any of his accomplices for lunch. Before he’s beheaded, someone check the born on dating of his mags.

  12. First off, arbitrary and illogical, as anyone that can legally own a firearm can carry as many magazines, or even five or six shot revolvers as they like. Second, this is akin to arresting people because their cars are capable of exceeding the speed limit. Of course the end game is for all of us to be disarmed, defenseless, and all driving electric SMART cars that drive themselves and are charged with wind energy.

    Meanwhile here in Oregon, one group want to limit mags to six rounds, and ammunition sales to six rounds at a time. The Insanity is beyond description.

    • I read an article on Buzzfeed (too lazy to link) that advocated self-driving cars. The rationale the guy used was eerily similar to when an anti-gun person starts foaming at the mouth. Basically, he said our freedom to drive fast and how we wanted didn’t supersede his right to safety, i.e. if self-driving electric cars were the norm, he’d have clean air to breathe and wouldn’t ever be run over because the cars would be coded to play it super-safe.

      • There’s little doubt at this point that self-driving cars will indeed be (in fact, already are) safer than your average driver, and so increasing their number on the roads will increase safety. But there’s a far cry from that to mandating them.

        I think it’ll actually happen kinda sorta by itself, because insurance companies will quickly take notice, and you’ll basically have a choice of self-driving car or 2x cost of auto insurance. All free market like.

        • “I think it’ll actually happen kinda sorta by itself, because insurance companies will quickly take notice, and you’ll basically have a choice of self-driving car or 2x cost of auto insurance.”

          Yep, semi-truck manufacturers will be early adopters, starting with automated lane-holding on interstates.

          The insurance companies will be big movers-and-shakers on this tech.

          Peering into my crystal ball, I predict self-driving cars will be *very* popular with alcoholics who just want to get their cars home from the bar…

      • Couple things on electric cars, for the interested…

        1) Electricity isn’t as “clean” as the tofu eaters believe it to be, considering 40%, or more, of America’s energy comes from coal.

        2) The chemicals in batteries are really bad for the environment, and those old batteries have to go somewhere.

        3) And the most obvious, yet rarely thought of, our power grid and infrastructure supporting it won’t be able to handle the 100’s of millions of cars being pugged in every night. There are power quality issues from everyone blasting their A/C’s during the summer and heaters in the winter, alone.

        • >> Electricity isn’t as “clean” as the tofu eaters believe it to be, considering 40%, or more, of America’s energy comes from coal.

          It depends on where in the country you are. E.g. here in WA, we get over 70% of our electricity from hydro, and the remainder has a considerable chunk of nuclear.

          In any case, burning coal in a properly designed power plant is still better, environmentally speaking, than burning gas directly inside the car – the plant can be as big as it needs to, and can have massive scrubbing filters to reduce emissions.

          And most importantly, once you centralize power generation and distribute its use, it’s that much easier to switch that generation to something new and better as it comes along. Maybe US will stop being stupid about it and start building more nuclear plants, like Chinese are. Maybe one of the teams working on promising fusion tech will have a breakthrough – there are several that have a good chance of happening in the next decade. Etc.

          >> The chemicals in batteries are really bad for the environment, and those old batteries have to go somewhere.

          The nice thing about them being in the batteries is that it makes it easier to recycle. And recycling them is actually desirable for the companies that make those cars and their batteries, too, because those rare earth metals aren’t cheap, so it’s very cost-effective to recycle.

          >> And the most obvious, yet rarely thought of, our power grid and infrastructure supporting it won’t be able to handle the 100’s of millions of cars being pugged in every night. There are power quality issues from everyone blasting their A/C’s during the summer and heaters in the winter, alone.

          The infrastructure is not a static thing and can be developed as needed. The roads that the country had back in 1920 were also not able to handle the sheer number of cars that were using them just a decade later. So what did they do? Why, they built more and better roads, of course, eventually culminating with the interstate system that has been a great success.

      • Good idea! Let’s also have self-shooting guns, mounted on every street, targeting anyone who might commit a crime! What could go wrong?

  13. WHEN dozens are arrested for normal capacity mags get excited. And William Burke-Ted Cruz is way better than the billionaire or the libertarian…

    • Sshhh…Ted Cruz is under media blackout. He knows the Constitution, has raised millions since the debate, is tied for 3rd nation wide and all FNC can talk about the awesomeness that is Carson and Rubio. -they’re putting the spot light on them and protecting Cruz from media exposure.

  14. Better to get excited now. This is called a precedent. I’m worried that they will use this lesser charge to be used as a plea bargain.

    They always offer deals, never to our advantage.

  15. I don’t know the specific legislation in CO, but the psychologist may have had a legal duty to report. We may not ever know given patient privacy, but if the psychologist thought that the guy was an imminent or credible threat to himself or the school, then he is bound by law to report the threat.

    There had better be some damn good documentation of the patient encounter to support the reporting, but the standard capacity magazine issue sounds bogus and trumped up, as others have said.

  16. Psychologist in Colorado have a history of not making sure their murderous patients don’t kill people in movie theaters. This doctor did the right thing. It’s to bad a different lady doctor did not insure her sick patient was stopped. That sick person killed a lot of people at the Ft Collins movie theater.

    The real question is what the heck are Colorado gun owners going to do about this magazine law???
    Don’t talk to me about Dudley Brown. Or what ever his name is. You got rid of three of the enemy leaders already. Your Marijuana intoxication will not make the magazine limit law go away.

    • Actually, she did report her patient to campus security, and it was security that declined to take any action.

      • She is suppose to explain herself before a board of inquiry. I look forward to her detailed explanation on all the things she did to stop her murderous patient she knew so well.

    • What do you suggest we do? I know the sheriff’s are still challenging the law in appelate court.

      • As a citizen journalist I would start by emulating Jesse Waters of the O’REILLY Factor and following this brown character with a microphone asking him why he thinks his deal was better now that people are being prosecuted. Put it on you yube. Start another recall petition. Don’t go back to pot smoking to ease your pain.
        As I said before you got three confirmed political “kills”. If you get two more you can become an Ace.

  17. Sheesh…standard capacity magazine over in my gun safe.

    Now the drum, yeah….that’s “high capacity” compared to the magazine.

    But I keep remembering that “shall not be infringed” phrase that occurs in ONLY one place in our founding documents. And clearly for good reason.

  18. Threatening to burn buildings down is a quick way to bring the ire of the state down upon you…..My take is that they threw every possible charge they could think of at this guy in order to make something stick so they could lock him up.

  19. If only police (“he’s not our problem” ) did their job when James Holme’s psychologist warned them he was a danger people would still be alive today and Coloranans would have their rights

  20. Now that he has threatened to destroy his school, his little brother can show up next year with a clock that looks like a bomb and then get to meet the president and a bunch of other dictators.

  21. The way these morons react to an empty spring loaded box you’d think Pinhead and the rest of the Cinnabuns were going to pop out of one.

  22. they needed the magazine law for reasonable cause so they could arrest him on charges that would get them in the door, Another reason Vets should be wary about who threats depression and PTSD, the Democrats have no use for Veterans except to vilify them, castigate them and refuse to honor the Contract! Sorta like this {Hilary B**ch} most democrat’s I know used to be real people not the Plastic Democrats we have today! [Rubber neck and a backbone like a Snake] isn’t that funny, anti gun people trying to brainwash vets by saying we care; except we count your guns and will turn you in too the Federal baby incinerator’s

  23. If this guy simply keeps his mouth shut, the burden of proof will fall on the prosecution to prove that he was not in possession of the magazine prior to the enactment of the law. Magazines do not have serial numbers or manufacturing dates so it is impossible to prove the date of possession. This is why the police and sheriffs have been in opposition to this law. It is unenforceable. This sounds like they were looking for ANYTHING to use against this guy and the magazine provided that vehicle.

    If he decides to start running his mouth — which seems all too likely — he will hang himself.

  24. TTAG failed to report that this guy was also a convicted felon. When they searched his home, he had an AR-15 and a Glock which automatically means jail time. The magazine charge was just piling on and is irrelevant…and provable.

    • I’m not sure how often anybody actually prosecutes people for illegal possession. You sure don’t hear much about it. Saying this guy will definitely do jail time, IMHO, is an unwarranted assumption.

  25. Ok, I am not panicking. The guy was a felon in possession of firearms, which should mean (and probably does mean in CO) felony jail time. Heading for CO with some standard sized Glock 17 magazines (all bought out of state and, of course, for any CO LEOs reading this, purchased before the cutoff date (but I have lost the receipts)).

    • True. The law is unenforceable. Unless they can prove a particular magazine was purchased or otherwise acquired AFTER the 1 Jul 2013 deadline, it don’t mean bubkis.

  26. When the laws were passed regarding magazine capacity and background checks on all sales and transfers he in Colorado, all county sheriffs but two joined in a lawsuit contesting them. Why? because they are both unenforcible, especially the magazine limit law.

    That said, this individual appears to be another case of mental stability. Making statements regarding shooting people and burning buildings down then being caught with weapons in your car would tend to substantiate those statements as well.

    Fort Collins is in a neighboring county to the one I live. I know the sheriff there is a staunch supporter of overturning these ridiculous laws. Using the high capacity magazine law may in fact be a way they can impound his weapons and mitigate further damages while they sort everything out.

    I am fairly certain anyone else who had not made themselves a target by making statements of shooting someone and burning buildings would not have had the magazine capacity law thrown at them by our local LEO’s, at least not from the sheriffs offices.

  27. Law? Facts? Liberal gov’t bureaucrats don’t need either… so sue ’em to make ’em abide by those, if you can afford it after they’ve ruined your life.

  28. “High-capacity” magazine bans are, among other things, both incredibly frustrating and more than slightly disingenuous. My magazine is not “high-capacity”. This is the magazine that game with my gun. It’s the *normal, default* capacity. Smaller magazines are “restricted-capacity”, which is clear from the fact that the bottom third is filler plastic. Let’s keep the terminology honest.

    I was in Denver recently for a concert, and I had to leave my EDC at home because it has a 17-round mag, and the 10-round mag I’d ordered a couple weeks before to facilitate this trip hadn’t arrived yet. I also had to leave my switchblade at home, because Colorado doesn’t allow those, either. Thankfully nothing notable happened, but it was the first trip I’d taken within the US without my EDC since I’d started carrying, and the lack of weight on my belt made me uneasy any time we left the hotel. Frustrating.

Comments are closed.