Originally Posted by listopencil
Do we agree that the intent of the law is to interfere with the rate of fire of a violent criminal?
I don't get what you mean by a loose use of the term "possess." It seems fairly cut-and-dry to me that he broke the law, that the police stated that he broke the law, that the police determined that arrest was unnecessary and that the District Attorney General declined to prosecute citing de minimis non curat lex.
I think we've exhausted this. We agree it would be ridiculous to prosecute. I think we agree that the lack of prosecution is not some pro-liberal conspiracy. That's good enough for today.