My only current dilemma, based on the advice of my trust attorney, the one and only NFATrustGuy, is deciding how many will transfer into my trust.
My only current dilemma, based on the advice of my trust attorney, the one and only NFATrustGuy, is deciding how many will transfer into my trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutal
I asked the same questions of the same attorney and was advised that there would be no reason not to transfer all of them.
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
I was purposely vague and did not mean to imply said attorney was anything but crystal clear on that point. I will quite possibly sell some currently in my possession prior to midnight June 30 and just need to have the form ready to sign.
Any removable baseplate mag and/or >15 rd mag in my possession June 30 will go into the trust. I'm also acquiring an AK soon and have mags yet to be purchased.
I suppose I could have one transfer form for the pistol mags that aren't going to vary, and make another one for all others.
That's all I'm willing to say on a public internets forum.
Yes. I do as well, all except for one [low capacity pistol] receipt that I cannot find. By "carry" these are scanned to pdf and take up virtually no space on iPhone / iPad.Quote:
Originally Posted by jim
So in my mind the question is are you buying magazines or are you collecting receipts - the manner of which allows one to forever own something by these laws?
If the burden of proof for time of possession is on the prosecution, IMHO, this doubles down on making their job difficult.
"Here you are officer / prosecuting attorney / detective! And feel free to lose it - I have many electronic copies both at home and remote. Enjoy!"
But I'm no attorney!
I or you should never say shit w/out an attorney present. They want info, I'd like have an attorney present. End of Conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski
Each to their own. Me i'm in it for the long game.
1) Can mags be legally transferred into a trust after June 30th?
2) I plan to just post pictures of everything I have in the picture thread and have my defense attorney subpoena every member of this site to the trial.
I just finished a Citizen's Police Academy with our 'local' police department last night. Eight Tuesday nights (except the one Saturday range day) learning a small portion of what our police department does, how they manage resources, their equipment, etc. I am extremely impressed with the MPD, their personnel, equipment, tactics, training and overal attitude.
During this time the rash of gun bills came up as discussion topics more than once. The responses given from the chief on down are in line with what the vast majority of us believe on a personal level and the professional responses were basically that these laws are so poorly written and contradictory that there is no way to enforce them.
Hopefully the sheriff's lawsuit, actions taken by the NRA and others after July 1, recall of Morse, challenges that will come from some poor individual victim of these idiotic laws, mid-term elections, will have the effect of repealing these laws.
One must always hope.
Why not? you own then do what ever you want as long as they are "in your possession" My question (AGAIN) is who knows what you own, are in possession etc etc?? UNLESS the mags have a post 6/30 date stamp / ID on them they were always in your possession. ALWAYS in your family's Possession. EVERY firearm within my reach is also owned by my spouse, daughter and numerous other family members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Take me to court and prove, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, they were not.
Like a firearm purchased ( 4473 purchase) before or after 7/1 You can transfer them LEGALLY as a "Gift" to your trust. This enables anyone you include in the trust, as owners until that ownership / possession is rescinded.
The less you post on line, the less Can and Will be Used against you In a Court of Law.
In laymen's term's SHUT UP, BE QUIET Stop Posting about it.
Yeah. That was exactly my first thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
You understand them perfectly as written? I can interpret them to mean just about anything, that's why Kopel filed the lawsuit... "Constitutionally vague" I believe is the term. [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by jim