Vermont goes the way of Massachusetts, New York.....

[xray 99]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vermonts-governor-changes-position-on-gun-laws-after-thwarted-school-shooting-1519339952

I believe the legislature passed an omnibus gun control bill that includes a magazine ban.

[Cool Breeze]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/vermonts-governor-changes-position-on-gun-laws-after-thwarted-school-shooting-1519339952

I believe the legislature passed an omnibus gun control bill that includes a magazine ban.So much for your constituents who voted for you because of your original platform.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[Kyle Reese]

IIRC, there were Democrats who opposed the magazine ban, and the Republican governor was the one pushing for it. Strange times we live in.

[RevolverRob]

So much for “Freedom and Unity”.

Vermont has been another state going downhill for two decades. Courtesy of Massholes and NYC-yoU-Next-TuesdayS.

[HCM]

Wolverines !


Free MAGPUL PMAGs to be Given Away in Vermont to Oppose Gun Control Bill

Read more: http://www.recoilweb.com/free-pmags-to-be-given-away-in-vermont-to-oppose-gun-control-bill-136138.html#ixzz5BIXexMiG
http://www.recoilweb.com/free-pmags-to-be-given-away-in-vermont-to-oppose-gun-control-bill-136138.html

[Ed L]

Another disturbing aspect of this is the long term effects on votes by the state's 2 senator's and congressmen. If it were a state where citizens can own 30 round rifle magazines, military style semiauto longarms, and pistol magazines with normal capacity--be it 15-19 rounds, the citizens might expect their senators and congressmen to defend that on a national level and the congressmen and senators might feel that they have to since that is what their constituency is accustomed to and wants.

However, if their constituency cannot own those things on a state level, not being able to own such will gradually be considered the norm and the citizens will be less concerned about national laws regulating such, and their nationally elected representatives will reflect that in their voting on any national level firearms restrictions.

[Stephanie B]

So much for “Freedom and Unity”.

Vermont has been another state going downhill for two decades. Courtesy of Massholes and NYC-yoU-Next-TuesdayS.

Maybe if they stopped voting for flatlanders.....

[StraitR]

Another disturbing aspect of this is the long term effects on votes by the state's 2 senator's and congressmen. If it were a state where citizens can own 30 round rifle magazines, military style semiauto longarms, and pistol magazines with normal capacity--be it 15-19 rounds, the citizens might expect their senators and congressmen to defend that on a national level and the congressmen and senators might feel that they have to since that is what their constituency is accustomed to and wants.

However, if their constituency cannot own those things on a state level, not being able to own such will gradually be considered the norm and the citizens will be less concerned about national laws regulating such, and their nationally elected representatives will reflect that in their voting on any national level firearms restrictions.

It's funny you should mention that. A quote from Gov Phil Scott in an article about the protests and giving away mags...


“I think at the end of the day," he said, "they’ll soon learn that what we have proposed, what’s being passed at this time, doesn’t intrude upon the Second Amendment. It doesn’t take away guns, and I believe that we will get accustomed to the new normal, which is trying to address this underlying violence that we are seeing across the nation.”

ETA: Link... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/31/gun-rights-activists-hand-out-high-capacity-magazines-at-vermont-rally.html

[HeavyDuty]

An exercise in frog boiling...

[willie]

We are now embroiled in a culture war. See Glen's intellectual and well thought out posts on the subject.

[cclaxton]

Was Phil Scott a stealth candidate? (Democrat pretends to be Republican?)

[VT1032]

Was Phil Scott a stealth candidate? (Democrat pretends to be Republican?)

I really don't think he was. As I said in another thread, I kind of casually know him as my dad went to high school with him and they have been on and off friends over the years. He was always a moderate republican business owner that eventually got into politics. As the lt governor, he tended to stick to his guns but that was a fairly low profile role. As a governor, he's been a complete disapointment. He's basically flopped at every turn. I'm not sure if that's a survival mechanism in a heavily blue state or what, but he only won in the first place because Vermonters were fed up with the very liberal Shumlin administration, which spent taxpayer dollars like it was going out of style. If it's a survival mechanism, it's a piss poor one because he just alienated the very people who got him elected. I'm pretty sure he won't be getting another term.

The funny thing is that prior to this, he was pretty openly pro gun. He's admitted during radio interviews that he own's multiple AR15's. I'm not sure what caused him to flip on this, but it was unexpected to say the least.

[Ed L]

We are now embroiled in a culture war. See Glen's intellectual and well thought out posts on the subject.

Well, I'm afraid we've lost the culture war and I don't see any way of winning it. Gradeschoolers can get suspended for drawing a gun or making a gun symbol with their hand--and in one case in NJ posting pictures of themselves at a firing range on social media that had nothing to do with the school.

Think of the way a homosexual would be treated in a school in the 1930s to get an approximation.

It also seems like every major celebrity has jumped on the anti-gun train, and organizations after the latest shooting have created new celebrity spokes-teenagers.

[TSH]

Well, I'm afraid we've lost the culture war and I don't see any way of winning it. Gradeschoolers can get suspended for drawing a gun or making a gun symbol with their hand--and in one case in NJ posting pictures of themselves at a firing range on social media that had nothing to do with the school.

Think of the way a homosexual would be treated in a school in the 1930s to get an approximation.

It also seems like every major celebrity has jumped on the anti-gun train, and organizations after the latest shooting have created new celebrity spokes-teenagers.

I disagree. Many people will reflexively disagree with the coasts and celebrity opinion, states (like Utah) are statutorily protecting free-range parenting, gun sales are increasing instead of decreasing, more and more people are getting CCWs, millennials are watching cooking shows where guys like Anthony Bourdain hunt food for the table with rifles, and eventually you will as the same sort of backlash that we saw during the midterm elections in the Clinton years, only this time it will be against the coastal liberals.

I bet the Rs will keep Congress. If history has taught us anything, it that the more shrill the hand wringers and main stream media get, the more scared they are about their chances of winning. Right now they’re pretty shrill.

I was watching a rerun of some stupid show from the early 80s the other day. The anti-gun message was well beyond anything we see today and clearly supportive of total bans on everything. I’m sure guys like us back then were saying we lost the culture war, and look where we are now.

The celebs think they define the media, but the voters are the ones making the decision in the end. Guns aren’t going anywhere.

[Ed L]

I disagree.

I hope you are right and I am just being pesimistic.

[Joe in PNG]

I hope you are right and I am just being pesimistic.

A culture of entitled helplessness cannot and will not long continue.

[Peally]

One less state I need to visit. No loss.

[Ed L]

A culture of entitled helplessness cannot and will not long continue.

But they can do a lot of damage if enough of them take to the political and voting arena, and mess up the country as well. Can you imagine if we somehow had a major war and had to draft these people? (I can't find the vomiting smiley to follow my post).

[hufnagel]

May many/all of the residents of VT take this up as their new flag.

https://img0.etsystatic.com/142/1/13321089/il_570xN.1138392482_1jlq.jpg

[TSH]

But they can do a lot of damage if enough of them take to the political and voting arena, and mess up the country as well. Can you imagine if we somehow had a major war and had to draft these people? (I can't find the vomiting smiley to follow my post).

It only looks bad because they are noisy, outspoken, and obnoxious. They give the appearance of numbers by using social media to spread their nonsense, aided by sycophants in the media.

The NRA, GOA, etc are receiving tons of donations and ammo is selling as fast as it’s produced. It’s not just a bunch of fat old white guys driving that trend - it’s people from all walks of life.

[scjbash]

IIRC, there were Democrats who opposed the magazine ban, and the Republican governor was the one pushing for it. Strange times we live in.

I don't think that's very uncommon at the state level. In WV our biggest hindrance to passing pro-2A legislation is the Republican chair of a judiciary committee. The most vocal anti-gun mayor in the state is a Republican. We've had D's cosponsor all of the great legislation we've passed, and we've had R's vote against all of it.

[JohnO]

I was at the range yesterday with a friend who lives in Vermont. He was told flat out by a Vermont State Trooper that the police have NO Intention of enforcing any of these new firearms related laws and the Department has plainly communicated this to the Legislature.

My friend said the magazine ban is sales related only and that it will be legal to drive across the river into New Hampshire and buy what ever magazine you want and bring it home.

[blues]

I was at the range yesterday with a friend who lives in Vermont. He was told flat out by a Vermont State Trooper that the police have NO Intention of enforcing any of these new firearms related laws and the Department has plainly communicated this to the Legislature.

My friend said the magazine ban is sales related only and that it will be legal to drive across the river into New Hampshire and buy what ever magazine you want and bring it home.

I applaud the trooper's position but would hesitate to hang my hat on his assurances. Mr. Murphy has a way of showing up uninvited.

[JohnO]

I applaud the trooper's position but would hesitate to hang my hat on his assurances. Mr. Murphy has a way of showing up uninvited.

As my friend described it this decision not to enforce came from the upper levels of the state police. However we all know how the wind direction can change with a few key appointments.

[Le Français]

My friend said the magazine ban is sales related only and that it will be legal to drive across the river into New Hampshire and buy what ever magazine you want and bring it home.

The version of the bill that I read bans possession, not just sale or purchase. Perhaps there was an amendment. (?)

Has anyone a link to the final version of this bill?

[WobblyPossum]

This is the text as passed by both house and senate according to legislature.vermont.gov:
https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/BILLS/S-0055/S-0055%20As%20Passed%20by%20Both%20House%20and%20Sen ate%20Official.pdf
It bans possession, manufacture, purchase, import, transfer, receiving, and sale of rifle mags with >10 round capacity so it definitely is not something you can legally get around by buying them in NH.

There is an LEO exemption, however the wording is confusing: “(B) transferred to or possessed by a federal law enforcement officer or a law enforcement officer certified as a law enforcement officer by the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council pursuant to 20 V.S.A. § 2358, for legitimate law enforcement purposes, whether the officer is on or off duty”

As far as I can tell, there is only one definition of “legitimate law enforcement purpose” in the Vermont Statutes Annotated and that is found in the laws regarding automated license plate reader use. T 23 V.S.A 1607(a)(5) states: “Legitimate law enforcement purpose" applies to access to active or historical data, and means investigation, detection, analysis, or enforcement of a crime or of a commercial motor vehicle violation or a person's defense against a charge of a crime or commercial motor vehicle violation, or operation of AMBER alerts or missing or endangered person searches.”

Does that mean I can only possess 30 round ar mags if I’m investigating, detecting, analyzing or enforcing criminal or commercial motor vehicle violations?


——
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

[TGS]

This is the text as passed by both house and senate according to legislature.vermont.gov:
https://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2018/Docs/BILLS/S-0055/S-0055%20As%20Passed%20by%20Both%20House%20and%20Sen ate%20Official.pdf
It bans possession, manufacture, purchase, import, transfer, receiving, and sale of rifle mags with >10 round capacity so it definitely is not something you can legally get around by buying them in NH.

There is an LEO exemption, however the wording is confusing: “(B) transferred to or possessed by a federal law enforcement officer or a law enforcement officer certified as a law enforcement officer by the Vermont Criminal Justice Training Council pursuant to 20 V.S.A. § 2358, for legitimate law enforcement purposes, whether the officer is on or off duty”

As far as I can tell, there is only one definition of “legitimate law enforcement purpose” in the Vermont Statutes Annotated and that is found in the laws regarding automated license plate reader use. T 23 V.S.A 1607(a)(5) states: “Legitimate law enforcement purpose" applies to access to active or historical data, and means investigation, detection, analysis, or enforcement of a crime or of a commercial motor vehicle violation or a person's defense against a charge of a crime or commercial motor vehicle violation, or operation of AMBER alerts or missing or endangered person searches.”

Does that mean I can only possess 30 round ar mags if I’m investigating, detecting, analyzing or enforcing criminal or commercial motor vehicle violations?


——
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

"Legitimate law enforcement purpose" is bad wording as there are better choices, but I think it's pretty easy to assume that it's equal to/intent is "within scope of duties."

So, me, with a firearms policy that is limited to certain weapons, I wouldn't be able to own a Beretta 18 round mag because it's not an authorized firearm for my job......therefore not for a "legitimate LE purpose", or within the scope of my duties as defined by my agency.

I wouldn't overthink it too much. Buy/own whatever is authorized by your agency, and I can't imagine you running into trouble.

[JTQ]

I was at the range yesterday with a friend who lives in Vermont. He was told flat out by a Vermont State Trooper ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEed-o8fVpM

[WobblyPossum]

I’m also ticked off that they wrote in a sunset provision to the clause that allows out of state residents to bring “large capacity ammunition devices” in temporarily for the purposes of shooting matches. What’s the point of that? Are the NH residents that want to shoot USPSA up here going to suddenly go on killing sprees in 2019 with the magazines they’re legal to have through 2018? That’s just petty.


–————————————————
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

[olstyn]

"Legitimate law enforcement purpose" is bad wording as there are better choices, but I think it's pretty easy to assume that it's equal to/intent is "within scope of duties."

So, me, with a firearms policy that is limited to certain weapons, I wouldn't be able to own a Beretta 18 round mag because it's not an authorized firearm for my job......therefore not for a "legitimate LE purpose", or within the scope of my duties as defined by my agency.

I wouldn't overthink it too much. Buy/own whatever is authorized by your agency, and I can't imagine you running into trouble.

That does make it sound like LEOs would technically only be allowed to have "large capacity" mags for their duty guns, and in theory would have to turn in/dispose of any that aren't for those guns. Unlikely that that would be enforced against cops, though; what cop wants to arrest another cop over a law they both object to? Of course, I'm always confused at the idea that LEOs should get an exemption from these laws; why do LEOs need access to things regular civilians aren't allowed to have? Presumably these laws are always written that way because the people writing them know that they'll draw a ton of fire from LE if they don't. Seems like everybody loses, though. My condolences to all Vermont residents. :(

[LockedBreech]

Au revoir, Vermont.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Au revoir, Vermont.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if they'll erase the Green Mountain Boys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Mountain_Boys) from their history books...

Sigh.

[LockedBreech]

I wonder if they'll erase the Green Mountain Boys (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Mountain_Boys) from their history books...

Sigh.

That assumes they cared enough about their history to even know about them. Sad day.

[JohnO]

Au revoir, Vermont.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My earlier comments were the result of one conversation with a guy who usually gets it correct. I have not researched the new law or proposed law in Vermont. For years my friend has been telling me how the salt of the earth Vermonters are disgusted with the commie liberals that have invaded their state. If there ever is a state where mass non-compliance is going to take place Vermont certainly has the potential to be #1.

[LockedBreech]

My earlier comments were the result of one conversation with a guy who usually gets it correct. I have not researched the new law or proposed law in Vermont. For years my friend has been telling me how the salt of the earth Vermonters are disgusted with the commie liberals that have invaded their state. If there ever is a state where mass non-compliance is going to take place Vermont certainly has the potential to be #1.

I very much hope that’s true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2018/04/05/08/bernie-sanders-mlk-rally.jpg

"No one's taking my magazines. What a man reads in his own bathroom is his business."

[WobblyPossum]

That does make it sound like LEOs would technically only be allowed to have "large capacity" mags for their duty guns, and in theory would have to turn in/dispose of any that aren't for those guns. Unlikely that that would be enforced against cops, though; what cop wants to arrest another cop over a law they both object to? Of course, I'm always confused at the idea that LEOs should get an exemption from these laws; why do LEOs need access to things regular civilians aren't allowed to have? Presumably these laws are always written that way because the people writing them know that they'll draw a ton of fire from LE if they don't. Seems like everybody loses, though. My condolences to all Vermont residents. :(

Sorry, I should have been more clear when talking about the bill. It grandfathers anything owned before it’s signed. My question about the LE exemption was supposed to be about off duty possession but I accidentally left those words out in my haste to post. It was a mostly tongue in cheek rhetorical question to point out the poor choice of phrase.

The governors office recently sent out the following email to try and address some of the questions about this bill:

Dear Vermonter:

S.55, as passed by the Legislature, includes several gun safety provisions and regulations including universal background checks; safety training; bump stock devices; and magazine capacity.

The Governor has proposed other measures to address the root causes of violence. They include:
strengthening our mental health system to reduce the risk of violent crimes
school safety assessments and $5 million in school safety grants;
expanding opiate addiction prevention and treatment; and
a violence prevention task force to further address the complicated issue of reducing all forms of violence in our society.
You can read the Governor's full list of proposals by clicking HERE.

The specific content of S.55 is addressed in the frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

Sincerely,

The Governor's Information and Referral Office


GENERAL S.55

Q: Does S.55 include anything that requires me to turnover, or the government to confiscate, any of my firearms or magazines?
A: No. S.55 does NOT require anyone to turnover any type of firearm of magazine.

Q: Does S.55 ban any type of firearm?
A: No. S.55 does NOT ban, or make illegal, any specific type of firearm.

Q: I partake in sport shooting competitions and/or firearms training events. How will I be affected by this legislation?
A: S.55 has several provisions to accommodate sport shooting competitions and firearms training events. If you compete out-of-state or train out-of-state, you can continue to legally transport your firearms and magazines (regardless of size) into and out of Vermont. Similarly, if you are not a resident of Vermont, you can continue to legally transport your firearms and magazines of all sizes into Vermont for these purposes.


SAFETY COURSE REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASING UNDER AGE 21

Q: Is everyone prohibited from possessing a firearm until age 21?
A: No. The legal requirements for owning and possessing a firearm have not changed.

S.55 does not change possession laws. It only requires that anyone who wants to purchase a firearm before turning 21 has:
a) completed any approved firearm safety course (even at the minimum age for the course) such as Vermont’s hunter safety course approved by the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife;
b) is a member of law enforcement; or
c) is a member or veteran of the military.


Q: Are Vermonters prohibited from purchasing firearms until they are 21?
A: No. If you are 18-21, you may purchase firearms if you:
a) have completed any approved firearm safety course (even at the minimum age for the course) such as Vermont’s hunter safety course, an NRA course, 4-H course, or Boy Scout course approved by the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife;
b) are a member of law enforcement; or
c) are a member or veteran of the military.

Q: I'm under 21 years of age and I have bought and own firearms. Do I have to turn in any guns? Will I be unable to go hunting or recreational shooting?
A: No. Nothing in S.55 affects prior purchase, possession or use of firearms. In addition, youth in Vermont may legally possess firearms at age 16, or earlier with the consent of parent or guardian.


UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS

Q: Will the changes to the background check process change if I purchase my guns at a gun store/FFL or at a gun show?
A: No. All guns can be purchased at gun stores/from FFLs at a gun show in the same manner as before. This legislation only extends the background check process to sales between buyers and unlicensed gun dealers.

Q: Do I have to go through the background check process to give or sell a gun to a member of my family?
A: No. Guns given or sold to family members (spouse, parent, stepparent, child, stepchild, sibling, stepsibling, grandparent, step grandparent, grandchild, step grandchild, great grandparent, step great grandparent, greatgrandchild, and step great grandchild) are not subject to background check requirements.


HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

Q: Does S.55 make high capacity magazines illegal?
A: No. It remains legal to possess large capacity magazines. Vermonters may purchase high capacity magazines from Vermont FFLs through October 1, 2018. Purchase of high capacity magazines in Vermont will be prohibited after October 1, 2018. Again, possession of high capacity magazines remains legal.

Q: What is the definition of a “high capacity magazine?”
A: The legislation uses the term “Large capacity ammunition feeding device” which includes a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has a capacity of no more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for handguns. It does NOT include:
An attached tubular device with capacity for .22 caliber rimfire ammunition;
Magazines manufactured or sold for use by a lever or bolt action long gun or by an antique firearm; or
Magazines for firearms sold as curios or relics as defined by the Agency of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Q: With the changes in S.55, do I have to get rid of my high capacity magazines?
A: No. Magazines--of any capacity--purchased prior to October 1, 2018 are "grandfathered" in, and are completely legal to own, possess and use

Q: Do I need to be able to prove I purchased, possessed or owned a high capacity magazine before enactment of this legislation?
A: No.

Q: If I leave the state with a high-capacity magazine, can I still legally re-enter the state with that magazine?
A: Yes, you may travel freely into and out of Vermont with legally purchased high-capacity magazines.

Q: May I still borrow/lend a high capacity magazine from/to a fellow Vermonter?
A: Yes. The new regulations do not include loaning high capacity magazines.

Q: I am a law enforcement officer. Will this affect my ability to purchase a high capacity magazine?
A: No. High capacity magazines may be transferred to or possessed by a state or federal law enforcement officer, whether the officer is on or off duty.

Q: Are there other exceptions to purchase, possession and transfer?
A: Yes. High capacity magazines may continue to be:
Transferred to a licensee for an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by federal law, or possessed by an employee or contractor of such a licensee on-site for these purposes, or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials; or
Possessed by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency after having been transferred to the individual by the agency upon retirement.

BUMP STOCKS

Q: What do I do if I own a bump stock?
A: Possession of bump stocks is prohibited by this legislation after October 1, 2018. Individuals can voluntarily and anonymously relinquish a bump stock device at any state police barracks.


GUN SHOP OWNERS, SELLERS & MANUFACTURERS

Q: Can I charge a fee to facilitate a gun transfer between two unlicensed parties?
A: Yes. The new law permits you to charge a “reasonable” fee.

Q: I am a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). What can I do with my unsold inventory of large capacity magazines?
A: FFLs may possess, transfer, sell and purchase large capacity magazines lawfully possessed by the FFL and transferred through October 1, 2018. Sales to Vermonters may occur through October 1, 2018.

Q: When facilitating a gun transfer, do I have to take any additional action (beyond the presentation of photo ID and a NICS background check) to determine whether the proposed transferee is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm?
A: No.

Q: Do I need to confirm the transferor is permitted to possess a firearm if a transfer fails?
A: No.

Q: Does this legislation restrict me from selling certain types of firearms?
A: No; it only restricts the sale of magazines and bump-stocks as discussed above.


Q: I am a firearm or firearm accessory manufacturer. Am I prohibited from manufacturing high-capacity magazines?
A: No.

Q: Can I continue to manufacture and transfer high capacity magazines in Vermont?
A: In limited situations:
For manufacture, transfer, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States, or the state or a department, agency, or political subdivision of the state;
For the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the U.S. Attorney General, or for product development;
For repair and return to the person from whom it was received; or
For transfer in foreign or domestic commerce for delivery and possession outside the State of Vermont.
Q: I understand that individuals under 21 who have completed hunter safety courses, or other approved courses, can still purchase firearms. What proof do they need to present to me, a gun store or dealer, for me to sell a firearm to them?
A: A person under 21 can purchase a firearm if they present a certificate of satisfactory completion of a Vermont hunter safety course or an equivalent hunter safety course approved by the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, or a certificate of satisfactory completion of a hunter safety course in another state or a province of Canada approved by the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife.


–————————————————
My posts only represent my opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of my employer. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

[JohnO]

Sorry, I should have been more clear when talking about the bill. It grandfathers anything owned before it’s signed.

Ah ha, now I remember. As my Vermont friend put it there is no Registration or Magazine Declaration (like Connecticut did). One can (by the grace of the benevolent government :rolleyes:) keep what they own. Not knowing what people have makes the statute virtually unenforceable. Unless that is one purchases and gets caught with date stamped P-Mags or something equivalent.

Apparently it's a not so widely know fact that magazines of opposite sexes stored in close proximity have the tendency to reproduce! The old time Yankees in Vermont are privy to this little known fact.