Magazines for family members who happen to be minors

[U81I812]

I'm not as nice as you guys, charged my son 10 cents a piece for mags. He had to break into the old piggy bank.

Bill of sales shows the date, sale price and # of mags.

[Busta Prima]

Lets not overthink it. Whomever is holding the mags, owns the mags. All mags were purchased legally. Never consent to any searches.

Notarys don't care what a document says, they only verify that you are who you say you are as you sign the document. If the notary dated the letter (or their log) it would prove the date it was signed, but so would mailing it to yourself, or simply signing it and putting it away. Few if any will enforce this and unless a notarized document is mentioned in the law, it only hurts everyone else if some have it and some don't. Same for adding your own serial number to the mags.

[mtnrider]

Lets not overthink it. Whomever is holding the mags, owns the mags. All mags were purchased legally. .

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.

[car-15]

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.

thats when said liberal lawyer needs to meet "fat tony" and get a Ted Williams across the back of the knee as he gets into his car on the way to court. ( this is hypothetical of course )

[newracer]

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.

No the prosecution has to prove he didn't.

[mtnrider]

No the prosecution has to prove he didn't.

And I think that would be pretty easy with a jury full of anti gun liberals.

[Mountain Man]

Thats why my kid gets a notarized statement with the mags. I will keep copies as well in case theirs is lost as an adult.

[Wildboarem]

I would look at a Trust like an NFA Trust. To my knowledge I don't think a Trust can be invalidated because a Trustee gets in trouble. Do we have any lawyers to weigh in on this?

[Great-Kazoo]

I would beg to differ. Not that I agree but I think a anti-American liberal lawyer might see that differently.

Example. 18 years from now your now 20 year old son is at the range shooting his AR with 30 round mags. He gets questioned about them.
Go back 18 years. He could never have purchased them personally being that he was 2 at the time of the ban. Off to jail he goes. Now he has to prove he owned them as a 2 year old. That's going to be a tough sell in a liberal court.

Again, I don't agree with this but I could sure see it happening.

.

It would be a prosecutor NOT a Lawyer. IF you hired a liberal to defend you, you deserve what you get.

What i own that does or does not have a serial number on it is immaterial. It is what we [household] have, which BTW, unless you put your shit out on the street. NO ONE will ever know or be the wiser what is or is not in your possession.

ONCE AGAIN all this panic, hand wringng over what if, is bull shit. SHUT UP , MAN UP And screw the .liberals.

[ChadAmberg]

The proposed law bans transfer of possession, not ownership from what I understand. Two very different legal concepts. Like how a felon can own a gun, but cannot possess it.
So all these plans on trusts, notorized receipts, etc... are most likely completely useless. Maybe if you take pictures of your baby in his crib holding the pmags, that would show the baby possesses it, but then you would not be able to take it back.

Yes, that's why this law is so totally f'd up and useless. How do you control possession of a piece of plastic, unless the whole idea was either to just be a feel good measure for idiotic dems, or to make every gun owner a criminal.