Colo Attorney General J. Suthers interprets magazine limit law

[SAnd]

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers interprets magazine limit law

DENVER - Colorado's Republican Attorney General John Suthers released technical guidance that narrowly interprets the state's soon-to-be-implemented law limiting magazine capacity, a move designed to address concerns raised by gun rights supporters during the legislative session.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/336703/166/AG-Suthers-interprets-magazine-limit-law

A half hour of hunting around the Colorado website I can't find a copy of AG Suthers release.
[Bang][Bang][Bang]

If anybody can find a copy please post it.

[merl]

http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/

[SAnd]

http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/

Thanks. I didn't think to look in the "ATTORNEY GENERAL SUTHERS’ STATEMENT ON FEDERAL LAWSUIT CHALLENGING COLORADO’S RECENT GUN LEGISLATION (http://www.ar-15.co/press/news/2013/05/17/attorney_general_suthers%E2%80%99_statement_federa l_lawsuit_challenging_colorado%E2%80%99s_rec)".

[Circuits]

A very reasonable and common sense interpretation to a stinking pile of shit piece of knee jerk liberal legislation. My fingers are still crossed for successful challenge on basis of vagueness, since it does nothing to clarify how/who can prove a magazine was not lawfully possessed prior to 7/1/13, nor does it address moving in-state with large cap mags that were otherwise lawfully possessed (outside the state) either prior to 7/1/13 or post that date, and how it's to be proven.

[Hound]

Did that last part mean that we have to keep all of our mags locked up at all times? If so, not so reasonable.

[spqrzilla]

The problem is that the state Attorney General has no authority over the county District Attorney's offices. So his statement is utterly without any meaning or authority at all. If a District Attorney has a different interpretation, they can charge a defendant and attempt to prove their own interpretation of the statute to the judge. The AG's memo is meaningless.

[Sharpienads]

Nice try. The law is bullshit. Trying to make "reasonable" assumptions about the law is going to get you in trouble.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Having a signing statement to clarify for a law that is just being passed is kind of explaining a joke that you just told- Pretty much a sign of failure. If the law was unclear, why not get the law right before passing it?? If the law is that poorly constructed that you need to clarify it on day one, you should have sent it back and had them get it right.

[davsel]

Did that last part mean that we have to keep all of our mags locked up at all times? If so, not so reasonable.

That's they way it appears to me.

Last paragraph:


“For similar reasons, the bill’s requirement that an owner must maintain “continuous possession” in order to ensure the application of the grandfather clause cannot reasonably be read to require continuous physical possession. Proper storage of a large-capacity magazine, such as in a gun safe in the owner’s home or in a secure carrying case in the trunk of an automobile, is entirely consistent with the bill’s intent of limiting the acquisition and permanent transfer of large-capacity magazines after the effective date of July 1, 2013.”

Appears that evil mags may now have stricter storage requirements than guns. [Mad]

[HoneyBadger]

Having a signing statement to clarify for a law that is just being passed is kind of explaining a joke that you just told- Pretty much a sign of failure. If the law was unclear, why not get the law right before passing it?? If the law is that poorly constructed that you need to clarify it on day one, you should have sent it back and had them get it right.
This.

[SigShooter]

That "clarification" could be amended at any time, for reasons frivolous and obscure.

The law itself needs to be removed.