[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Enforcing Magazine limit (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/17/2013 6:34:20 AM EDT
|
How are they going to enforce the mag limit? They are not serial numbered so what stopping me from selling the ones I have. I go to the gun shows in SLC, UT so what's going to stop me from buying mags in UT and then bringing them home?
|
|
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point.
Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is about making us all felons Correct. it's not about what is enforceable. it's about control then confiscation. The up side is, Denver offers clean needles for heroin addicts, feel safer? what in Gods name is this?.. teach me. within Denver City limits by chance? What a toilet if thats the case?.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is about making us all felons Correct. it's not about what is enforceable. it's about control then confiscation. The up side is, Denver offers clean needles for heroin addicts, feel safer? what in Gods name is this?.. teach me. within Denver City limits by chance? What a toilet if thats the case?.... IIRC it has more to do with diabetics than actual dopers. They just get the benefit of it. My wife had to switch from a needle to an insulin pump so dudes would stop harassing her when we went to the 16th St mall. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have not seen the final Bill- However,when I reviewed the original Bill I thought there was a "grandfather" clause in the Bill - Which means, the burden of proof is on the state to prove when you purchased the "High Capcity" mags? http://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/54750/35507.JPG  Thanks for killing my appetite asshole* 
*Not literally |
|
Quoted:
what about people like me theat live out of state but that are on Vaction I dont go to the front range so my Guess is there will not be any problems "It is your responsability to know the laws where you are traveling" Which is why I hate visiting family in NY. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
what about people like me theat live out of state but that are on Vaction I dont go to the front range so my Guess is there will not be any problems "It is your responsability to know the laws where you are traveling" Which is why I hate visiting family in NY. this is just the way i see it the mag ban will for the most part only be enforced in the Denver metro area and Aspen I don't go there so there is no problem just my 2 cents not law I go 4 wheeling mostly in central CO mostly on the west slope I come up thew nm and leave threw nm I hate Denver , Colorado Springs and aspen not going near anyway to many transplants from the left coast |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
what about people like me theat live out of state but that are on Vaction I dont go to the front range so my Guess is there will not be any problems "It is your responsability to know the laws where you are traveling" Which is why I hate visiting family in NY. this is just the way i see it the mag ban will for the most part only be enforced in the Denver metro area and Aspen I don't go there so there is no problem just my 2 cents not law I go 4 wheeling mostly in central CO mostly on the west slope I come up thew nm and leave threw nm I hate Denver , Colorado Springs and aspen not going near anyway to many transplants from the left coast 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
what about people like me theat live out of state but that are on Vaction I dont go to the front range so my Guess is there will not be any problems "It is your responsability to know the laws where you are traveling" Which is why I hate visiting family in NY. this is just the way i see it the mag ban will for the most part only be enforced in the Denver metro area and Aspen I don't go there so there is no problem just my 2 cents not law I go 4 wheeling mostly in central CO mostly on the west slope I come up thew nm and leave threw nm I hate Denver , Colorado Springs and aspen not going near anyway to many transplants from the left coast I dislike some of people in the Springs not the whole town or people |
| I wouldn't throw colorado springs in the mix on that. Granted, we have a share of 'tards here, alot of which reside in manitou. Look for subarus, that's usually a giveaway. Otherwise, the county, and city is alot like Oklahoma. Our sheriff was one of the most vocal ones thumbing his nose at the states new gun laws. |
|
Quoted:
I wouldn't throw colorado springs in the mix on that. Granted, we have a share of 'tards here, alot of which reside in manitou. Look for subarus, that's usually a giveaway. Otherwise, the county, and city is alot like Oklahoma. Our sheriff was one of the most vocal ones thumbing his nose at the states new gun laws. good to know I lived there for a bit I meet a few of your tards 
|
|
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_enr.pdf
It looks like Non Residents can legally buy "High Cap Mags" from licensed Colorado dealers. Correct Me If I Am Wrong Page 2&3 18-12-302 section 3 (a) (v) If that is correct HB 1224 grows even more ridiculous |
|
Quoted: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_enr.pdf It looks like Non Residents can legally buy "High Cap Mags" from licensed Colorado dealers. Correct Me If I Am Wrong Page 2&3 18-12-302 section 3 (a) (v) If that is correct HB 1224 grows even more ridiculous That is what it looks like to me. I DEFINITELY see Magpul leaving Colorado over this. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. The only one in for a "Big Payday" will be the attorneys. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. The only one in for a "Big Payday" will be the attorneys. They will get their cut as always. Bottom line, simply having the mags will not constitute PC for an arrest. |
|
Quoted:
I have not seen the final Bill- However,when I reviewed the original Bill I thought there was a "grandfather" clause in the Bill - Which means, the burden of proof is on the state to prove when you purchased the "High Capcity" mags? Can I buy a "Grand Fathered" magazine after the law passes? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. The only one in for a "Big Payday" will be the attorneys. They will get their cut as always. Bottom line, simply having the mags will not constitute PC for an arrest. One of the unintended consequences of the legislation as written, is that you must by "in continuous possession" of your grandfathered magazines. No handing it to a buddy at the range, no letting your wife use it to protect your home while you are gone. Say, for example, you have a weapon in your vehicle when you are pulled over. You are the legal owner of the grandfathered +15 round magazine in the gun. However, if you announce that you have a weapon to the officer, and they take it to inspect it, you have just lost possession of your magazine. You can't take it back under the law. Once you give up possession, it is no longer yours. So what to do? In CO, you do not have an obligation to inform the officer of a concealed weapon in the car if you do not have a CCW, but what about those with conceal permits? If LEO's asks you about any weapons, and you are a permit holder, you must comply and tell them. I was taught to be upfront with LEO's, and it's always better to give them a heads up rather than them finding out somehow and you were not forthcoming with that info. |
|
Quoted:
Can I buy a "Grand Fathered" magazine after the law passes? No. You cannot. Those who own grandfathered mags may keep them until they die; at that point they must be disposed of. (Read: handed over to local gov.) It's amazing to me how many people are now worrying about the details of the bill *after* it has gone through both houses. also: No, Hickenlooper has not signed the bill yet. You still have time to write to him to object to it. But, be convincing, lucid and polite, and don't wear a TFH while writing. (Yes, I know what will follow is an "I'll be a screaming threatening bulldog if I want, they won't listen anyways, it's already been decided." - If that's how you feel, then just don't write. Shouting 'MOLON LABE!' at gov staffers in email isn't going to do a damn thing except make Hickenlooper sign it *faster*.) Flame on, for the above statement. |
|
Quoted:
Would that be an unlawful seizure issue to challenge this BS?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. The only one in for a "Big Payday" will be the attorneys. They will get their cut as always. Bottom line, simply having the mags will not constitute PC for an arrest. One of the unintended consequences of the legislation as written, is that you must by "in continuous possession" of your grandfathered magazines. No handing it to a buddy at the range, no letting your wife use it to protect your home while you are gone. Say, for example, you have a weapon in your vehicle when you are pulled over. You are the legal owner of the grandfathered +15 round magazine in the gun. However, if you announce that you have a weapon to the officer, and they take it to inspect it, you have just lost possession of your magazine. You can't take it back under the law. Once you give up possession, it is no longer yours. So what to do? In CO, you do not have an obligation to inform the officer of a concealed weapon in the car if you do not have a CCW, but what about those with conceal permits? If LEO's asks you about any weapons, and you are a permit holder, you must comply and tell them. I was taught to be upfront with LEO's, and it's always better to give them a heads up rather than them finding out somehow and you were not forthcoming with that info. |
|
Hickenlooper signing all bills including HB-1224 on Wednesday.
http://www.koaa.com/news/governor-hickenlooper-to-sign-gun-control-bills/ |
|
You are going to have to get the law changed and vote in republicans next voting
cycle. NJ Governir James Florio (D) raised taxes and passed an assault weapons ban in 1990. He was voted out in 1993, and a republican governor was elected. Gov Christy Whitman (R) did Nothing to repeal the law. The only thing she did was repeal the increase in sales tax back to 6%. Her choice for Attorney General did allow the sale of neutered Assault Weapons. NJ has a 15 rd limit, and it was difficult getting mags for many guns. Over the past 20 years most conservatives and gun owners left NJ, and many liberals from Phily and NYC have moved in. It is a lost cause in NJ. Just a side note: NJ has no "Right to Bear Arms" clause in its constitution. The federal courts rejected to her the case for a repeal. If Colorodo has the "Right to Bear Arms"'clause, you stand a shot of its repeal. Goodluck, stand your ground and vote these commies out of office. |
|
Now that it's law, though, realistically; and i keep telling people this: "recalls" will do nothing except make people feel vindicated; and a "repeal" is almost impossible.
This is going to be CO's law of the land for the forseeable future, probably for our lifetimes. Especially since one of the most common responses is "i'll move out". |
|
Quoted:
Now that it's law, though, realistically; and i keep telling people this: "recalls" will do nothing except make people feel vindicated; and a "repeal" is almost impossible. This is going to be CO's law of the land for the forseeable future, probably for our lifetimes. Especially since one of the most common responses is "i'll move out". Not all of us are. I will only leave as a last resort. This is my home and its more than worth fighting for. If we can manage to change the face of the legislature, then step two MUST be the reppeal of these laws. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. The only one in for a "Big Payday" will be the attorneys. They will get their cut as always. Bottom line, simply having the mags will not constitute PC for an arrest. One of the unintended consequences of the legislation as written, is that you must by "in continuous possession" of your grandfathered magazines. No handing it to a buddy at the range, no letting your wife use it to protect your home while you are gone. Say, for example, you have a weapon in your vehicle when you are pulled over. You are the legal owner of the grandfathered +15 round magazine in the gun. However, if you announce that you have a weapon to the officer, and they take it to inspect it, you have just lost possession of your magazine. You can't take it back under the law. Once you give up possession, it is no longer yours. So what to do? In CO, you do not have an obligation to inform the officer of a concealed weapon in the car if you do not have a CCW, but what about those with conceal permits? If LEO's asks you about any weapons, and you are a permit holder, you must comply and tell them. I was taught to be upfront with LEO's, and it's always better to give them a heads up rather than them finding out somehow and you were not forthcoming with that info. How does the bill define "in continuous possession", I leave my house mag is out in the open, house is broken into and mag is stolen it is now out of my "continuous possession"? Same scenario, but is locked in a safe. Since I am the only one that can get in with a code is that "continuous possession" and they get into the safe who has possession of the mag if it is recovered? The way this sounds if I dont keep them on my body at all times then I have lost the legal right to call them mine, or am I way off base? |
|
possession If I let you shoot a class three Idem at a Machine gun shoot I am still in possession as long As I can see the weapon or idem
If you go to the range and you let a buddies use it you are still in possession of it if you get pulled over and a Leo handles it you are still in possession it would be no differant than a class 3 idem |
|
Quoted:
Not all of us are. I will only leave as a last resort. This is my home and its more than worth fighting for. If we can manage to change the face of the legislature, then step two MUST be the reppeal of these laws. Same. I'm upset with this, and the fight so far has been wearying - but i'm not about to "take my toys and move out". Frustrated and may need a breather, but I'm not leaving CO, and I intend to continue to do what I can to overturn this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, it is unenforceable. That is not the point. Lets say you get pulled over by an anti gun cop and you have mags with you. You are going to take a ride, get a ticket, lose your mags and have to fight it in court. These bills have a purpose, and that is to show that the dems can pass gun laws anywhere. They are taking this state by state. There is no PC to make an arrest in these instances..."No sir, I had these before the ban..." ....In this instance there would be no way for the cop to say that due to the existing facts and circumstances that you have, are going to, or are in the process of comitting a crime. If you would happen to be arrested you will be in for a big payday. The only one in for a "Big Payday" will be the attorneys. They will get their cut as always. Bottom line, simply having the mags will not constitute PC for an arrest. One of the unintended consequences of the legislation as written, is that you must by "in continuous possession" of your grandfathered magazines. No handing it to a buddy at the range, no letting your wife use it to protect your home while you are gone. Say, for example, you have a weapon in your vehicle when you are pulled over. You are the legal owner of the grandfathered +15 round magazine in the gun. However, if you announce that you have a weapon to the officer, and they take it to inspect it, you have just lost possession of your magazine. You can't take it back under the law. Once you give up possession, it is no longer yours. So what to do? In CO, you do not have an obligation to inform the officer of a concealed weapon in the car if you do not have a CCW, but what about those with conceal permits? If LEO's asks you about any weapons, and you are a permit holder, you must comply and tell them. I was taught to be upfront with LEO's, and it's always better to give them a heads up rather than them finding out somehow and you were not forthcoming with that info. How does the bill define "in continuous possession", I leave my house mag is out in the open, house is broken into and mag is stolen it is now out of my "continuous possession"? Same scenario, but is locked in a safe. Since I am the only one that can get in with a code is that "continuous possession" and they get into the safe who has possession of the mag if it is recovered? The way this sounds if I dont keep them on my body at all times then I have lost the legal right to call them mine, or am I way off base? The bill is intentionally vague -there is no definition of "continuous possession". It is completely up to LE/judiciary interpretation. By the letter of the law, if you do not keep the mags in your possession at all times, you would potentially forfeit ownership. That may seem like a stretch, but having dealt with legal documents for my job, the court can only go buy what is (or is not) written in the law. A judge could decide this phrase refers to basic ownership, or he could rule that it literally means physical possession at ALL times. I have a feeling this will end up in a high court sometime in the near future - and that is what perhaps scares me the most. We all saw the Supreme Court debacle surrounding Obamacare. |
|
Quoted:
possession If I let you shoot a class three Idem at a Machine gun shoot I am still in possession as long As I can see the weapon or idem If you go to the range and you let a buddies use it you are still in possession of it if you get pulled over and a Leo handles it you are still in possession it would be no differant than a class 3 idem I hope you are right, OKguy - Class 3 weapons require what is legally referred to as "Constructive Possession", not "continuous possession". I fear they are not the same thing, as the only legal standing I know of for the term "continuous possession" has to do with property, as in land. In this definition, if you abandon your property, and someone else takes possession of it for a certain period of time, then it becomes theirs. Squatters have been able to take possession of other people's land if they maintain possession uninterrupted. There is no precedent for this term when applied to any sort of small possession such as a magazine. If the bill had stated "constructive possession", I would feel a lot better... but as it stands, no one knows what "continuous possession" means in this bill. |
|
Big issue to me is what will be legal to purchase after 1 July.
Can a dealer sell you a Glock 19 with standard magazines? How about a Beretta 92? or s Sig P226? Letter of the law says no. The only type of magazines that will be legal after that date are the 10rd magazines that are designed to work with these firearms. So even though the legal limit is 15 rds, the practical limit is 10rd magazines for new purchasers after 1 July. Looking at any pistol magazine in relation to the screwed up language in the bill and that is about the logic of it. |
|
Quoted:
Big issue to me is what will be legal to purchase after 1 July. Can a dealer sell you a Glock 19 with standard magazines? How about a Beretta 92? or s Sig P226? Letter of the law says no. The only type of magazines that will be legal after that date are the 10rd magazines that are designed to work with these firearms. So even though the legal limit is 15 rds, the practical limit is 10rd magazines for new purchasers after 1 July. Looking at any pistol magazine in relation to the screwed up language in the bill and that is about the logic of it. Actually if the magazine is "readily convertible" i.e. it can take a +2 or +1 mag extension, even if the total round count is under 15 rounds, by law its banned. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Big issue to me is what will be legal to purchase after 1 July. Can a dealer sell you a Glock 19 with standard magazines? How about a Beretta 92? or s Sig P226? Letter of the law says no. The only type of magazines that will be legal after that date are the 10rd magazines that are designed to work with these firearms. So even though the legal limit is 15 rds, the practical limit is 10rd magazines for new purchasers after 1 July. Looking at any pistol magazine in relation to the screwed up language in the bill and that is about the logic of it. Actually if the magazine is "readily convertible" i.e. it can take a +2 or +1 mag extension, even if the total round count is under 15 rounds, by law its banned. if I were a distributor, I would just stop shipping to Colorado altogether. The law is just to vague and confusing. |
|
Quoted:
possession If I let you shoot a class three Idem at a Machine gun shoot I am still in possession as long As I can see the weapon or idem If you go to the range and you let a buddies use it you are still in possession of it if you get pulled over and a Leo handles it you are still in possession it would be no differant than a class 3 idem Makes good sense, thanks for the clarification. I've been to a few FA shoots, that's what I've always seen happen there. |
|
Quoted:
How are they going to enforce the mag limit? They are not serial numbered so what stopping me from selling the ones I have. I go to the gun shows in SLC, UT so what's going to stop me from buying mags in UT and then bringing them home? As many guns that are appropriate for militia use are designed for large capacity magazines, and use of smaller capacity magazines infringes on the effectiveness of said weapon, a large capacity magazine ban is in obvious violation of the 2nd Amendment. As any large-cap magazine ban is illegal as per the US Constitution, I would ignore it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now that it's law, though, realistically; and i keep telling people this: "recalls" will do nothing except make people feel vindicated; and a "repeal" is almost impossible. This is going to be CO's law of the land for the forseeable future, probably for our lifetimes. Especially since one of the most common responses is "i'll move out". Not all of us are. I will only leave as a last resort. This is my home and its more than worth fighting for. If we can manage to change the face of the legislature, then step two MUST be the reppeal of these laws. Somebody from Colorado needs to step up, get arrested, then bring the case to the US Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. The law will get tossed in minutes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now that it's law, though, realistically; and i keep telling people this: "recalls" will do nothing except make people feel vindicated; and a "repeal" is almost impossible. This is going to be CO's law of the land for the forseeable future, probably for our lifetimes. Especially since one of the most common responses is "i'll move out". Not all of us are. I will only leave as a last resort. This is my home and its more than worth fighting for. If we can manage to change the face of the legislature, then step two MUST be the reppeal of these laws. Somebody from Colorado needs to step up, get arrested, then bring the case to the US Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. The law will get tossed in minutes. You're a good guy for volunteering to drive over to CO to do this. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now that it's law, though, realistically; and i keep telling people this: "recalls" will do nothing except make people feel vindicated; and a "repeal" is almost impossible. This is going to be CO's law of the land for the forseeable future, probably for our lifetimes. Especially since one of the most common responses is "i'll move out". Not all of us are. I will only leave as a last resort. This is my home and its more than worth fighting for. If we can manage to change the face of the legislature, then step two MUST be the reppeal of these laws. Somebody from Colorado needs to step up, get arrested, then bring the case to the US Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. The law will get tossed in minutes. Actually several lawyers testifying against the bills basically claimed they were going to do just that. My bet is that there will be an injunction filed even before it becomes law. |