TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:25 am

cyphertext wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:11 pm As much as I hate it, it does appear that Academy broke the law as it is written. Since Ruger sells the rifle with a 30 round magazine, as well as a "compliant" model with a 10 round magazine under different model numbers and SKUs, it does appear that Academy did break the law. Many of us complain about "activist judges"... well, here is a case that could bite the good guy with the law as written.

I suppose that the outcome will depend on how the court defines the word "includes" (see attached image below). My Ruger PC9 and Gunsite Scout both came with "included" buttstock spacers, but the weapons can fully function without any of the spacers. So are they accessories (which by the way, they can be purchased separately that way from Ruger), or are they part of the gun? Since the AR556 can be fired and eject the spent case without the included magazine (just like with any AR15, and regardless of magazine capacity) by dropping a round into the chamber and letting the bolt slam home and then firing the gun, it seems like it would be an easy enough argument to make in court that a magazine is not necessary to firing the gun, if presented along with an easily made video demonstrating that fact to a judge or jury.

It could boil down to what kind of judge the prosecutor can get by shopping the case around.


7D6BAA86-A544-4B36-96D4-59B8BD12783A.jpeg


So AT WORST, if they can get a fair judge, Academy is guilty of selling him a prohibited magazine ... which is a different kettle of fish.

gtolbert09 wrote:Until they release the actual charge, it would be difficult to speculate his rights to gun ownership.