36 counts of possession of a prohibited large capacity magazine

[Mtneer]

Dumbass got his road rage going and shot at a passing car in a fairly residential area of Gunbarrel (east Boulder). Of course the mag charges are just piling on the serious stuff. Doubt it will ever be reported if they were pre-ban or not. Wouldn't be surprised if he had 30 BX-25s for his Ruger 22 assault rifle and thousands of rounds of evil full metal jacket thingies.

"Detectives developed probable cause for a search warrant ?through additional investigation? and served a search warrant on the house and vehicle, where they found ?a large cache of firearms, ammunition and tactical gear inside the house,? according to the news release. Detectives also found ?suspected bomb-making materials? and called the Boulder County Regional Bomb Squad.

Waters was arrested and booked into the Boulder County Jail on suspicion of attempted second-degree murder, possession of an explosive or incendiary device, criminal mischief and 36 counts of possession of a prohibited large capacity magazine."

https://www.dailycamera.com/2021/11/24/boulder-county-road-rage-shooting-leads-to-attempted-murder-arrest/

Don't do stupid things so you don't lose your nice things, forever.

[Little Dutch]

Suspected bomb-making materials
Those sentences always make BP guys nervous. If they?ve got some plumbing materials in the garage too?add-on charge.


Large cache of firearms
How can anyone take these articles seriously. It?s all nonsense gibberish.
88526

ETA- agreed though, don?t be a dumbass.

[BushMasterBoy]

It was almost a Murder Death Kill.

[Hummer]

Dumbass got his road rage going and shot at a passing car in a fairly residential area of Gunbarrel (east Boulder). Of course the mag charges are just piling on the serious stuff. Doubt it will ever be reported if they were pre-ban or not. Wouldn't be surprised if he had 30 BX-25s for his Ruger 22 assault rifle and thousands of rounds of evil full metal jacket thingies.

"Detectives developed probable cause for a search warrant ?through additional investigation? and served a search warrant on the house and vehicle, where they found ?a large cache of firearms, ammunition and tactical gear inside the house,? according to the news release. Detectives also found ?suspected bomb-making materials? and called the Boulder County Regional Bomb Squad.
[COLOR=#1B1B1B][FONT="]

Don't do stupid things so you don't lose your nice things, forever.


The lesson is to never commit a crime of violence or anything that would trigger a search if you own pre-ban magazines. Even if legal prior to the incident, possession becomes unlawful if you commit a crime.

[BPTactical]

Not sure why this is a surprise.
We all know that it is an ancillary charge they will pile on to cement their case.

[eddiememphis]

The lesson is to never commit a crime.

Less words better

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

OR be in a righteous shoot and have them still tear your house apart..

Don't travel with a couple of guns and a 1000 rounds for class and let the hotel maid see them...

And never have a house fire so that someone is sifting through the ashes..

Don't have a kid playing video games where they can get SWATed...

These bans cost them nothing, and just add to one more thing that we have to deal with.

[Martinjmpr]

Unless he admits to it, how are they going to prove he wasn't in possession of them on 07/01/13 as the law requires? The law explicitly states that the burden is on the prosecution to show that he possessed them illegally (i.e. acquired after 7/1/13), the defendant is not required to prove he possessed them legally.

CRS 18-12-302(2)(b):
If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.

So, they can CHARGE if they want to, but all he has to do is assert that he possessed them legally and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove he didn't.

[DDT951]

The lesson is to never commit a crime of violence or anything that would trigger a search if you own pre-ban magazines. Even if legal prior to the incident, possession becomes unlawful if you commit a crime.

Where in the law does possession in your house of pre-ban magazines become unlawful if you commit a crime.

What IS unlawful is

(c) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
COMMITS A CLASS 6 FELONY IF THE PERSON POSSESSED A LARGE-CAPACITY
MAGAZINE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY OR ANY CRIME OF
VIOLENCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1.3-406.

Notice DURING the commission of a felony or crime of violence.

You magazines don' become illegal because you committed a crime. You must use them during commission of the crime (and then only felonies or crimes of violence)

[Martinjmpr]

Where in the law does possession in your house of pre-ban magazines become unlawful if you commit a crime.

What IS unlawful is

(c) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
COMMITS A CLASS 6 FELONY IF THE PERSON POSSESSED A LARGE-CAPACITY
MAGAZINE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY OR ANY CRIME OF
VIOLENCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1.3-406.

Notice DURING the commission of a felony or crime of violence.

You magazines don' become illegal because you committed a crime. You must use them during commission of the crime (and then only felonies or crimes of violence)

^^^^^ Correct.

Possessing the magazines during a crime doesn't make legal magazines become illegal magazines.

So if a magazine is legally possessed, this paragraph doesn't kick in.

However, possessing illegal magazines during a felony or crime of violence elevates the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.

[FoxtArt]

Unless he admits to it, how are they going to prove he wasn't in possession of them on 07/01/13 as the law requires? The law explicitly states that the burden is on the prosecution to show that he possessed them illegally (i.e. acquired after 7/1/13), the defendant is not required to prove he possessed them legally..

That's a great degree of speculation there. Sure, if every single magazine is pre-dated and he's a stand up guy that the jury likes, and the judge isn't a foaming socialist.

If so much as a single magazine is post-dated, they may as well all be. If the judge and prosecutors are staunch liberal appointees, it may not even matter if they are pre-ban. People do in fact get convicted of things that aren't illegal. Or more often then not, they accept plea bargains despite their innocence (not expressing any belief on this case).

Of course the real intent of the charges is to get him to take a plea bargain, and agree to 10 years, instead of the 36+ year prison term they'll threaten. It'll never go to trial, just like 19/20 cases.

[Rucker61]

Unless he admits to it, how are they going to prove he wasn't in possession of them on 07/01/13 as the law requires? The law explicitly states that the burden is on the prosecution to show that he possessed them illegally (i.e. acquired after 7/1/13), the defendant is not required to prove he possessed them legally.

CRS 18-12-302(2)(b):

So, they can CHARGE if they want to, but all he has to do is assert that he possessed them legally and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove he didn't.

I'm guessing these were AR mags, specifically Magpul, as those are fairly popular, and they all have a date stamp on them from the factory.

[Eric P]

I'm guessing these were AR mags, specifically Magpul, as those are fairly popular, and they all have a date stamp on them from the factory.

Which are easily removed.

I did so on all my preban polymer magazines because why should they be dated in the 1st place.

[TEAMRICO]

I recall a member here state that he “Operated” so hard that actually wore the date markings off the mags……
I always thought that was funny.

[ray1970]

So, are these magazine related charges based on state law or is it some sort of Boulder/Boulder county thing?

[Hummer]

Where in the law does possession in your house of pre-ban magazines become unlawful if you commit a crime.

What IS unlawful is

(c) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
COMMITS A CLASS 6 FELONY IF THE PERSON POSSESSED A LARGE-CAPACITY
MAGAZINE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY OR ANY CRIME OF
VIOLENCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1.3-406.

Notice DURING the commission of a felony or crime of violence.

You magazines don' become illegal because you committed a crime. You must use them during commission of the crime (and then only felonies or crimes of violence)


Thank you for the clarification! Felony or crime of violence + use of illegal, post ban mags....




Unless he admits to it, how are they going to prove he wasn't in possession of them on 07/01/13 as the law requires? The law explicitly states that the burden is on the prosecution to show that he possessed them illegally (i.e. acquired after 7/1/13), the defendant is not required to prove he possessed them legally.

CRS 18-12-302(2)(b):

So, they can CHARGE if they want to, but all he has to do is assert that he possessed them legally and the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove he didn't.


Still, the presumption of innocence won't keep one out of jail short term or even longer. Can we really trust a DA or even a judge to rule correctly on the law?

When the CO law banning standard capacity magazines was passed we had some 6-7 months to legally acquire them. I bought Magpul 20, 30 & 40's through the Magpul Boulder Airlift and archived the receipts, copies of which reside in my computer files, safes and vehicles.

I didn't own an AR at the time I bought the mags but passage of the law prompted me to acquire several. They get regular exercise.

[Rucker61]

Which are easily removed.

I did so on all my preban polymer magazines because why should they be dated in the 1st place.

Some folks just aren't that smart.

[Rucker61]

So, are these magazine related charges based on state law or is it some sort of Boulder/Boulder county thing?

See HB 13-1224.

[kidicarus13]

Some folks just aren't that smart.Some dads are rule followers.

[sroz]

Some dads are rule followers.

Couldn’t read the article cuz it requires a subscription and don’t care enuf to find another source. Did see this guy is 39 years old. Confused as to what his dad’s involvement was.

[Martinjmpr]

See HB 13-1224.

The law is CRS 18-12-301 to 18-12-303. HB13-1224 was the bill (i.e. the proposed law.) In this case the law is identical to the bill but that's not always true, sometimes the bill gets modified before it gets signed into law. ;)

[Martinjmpr]

Couldn’t read the article cuz it requires a subscription and don’t care enuf to find another source. Did see this guy is 39 years old. Confused as to what his dad’s involvement was.

I think that was a sly reference to this thread: https://www.ar-15.co/threads/185947-Family-transfers

[Aloha_Shooter]

Which are easily removed.

I did so on all my preban polymer magazines because why should they be dated in the 1st place.

I understand your impetus to do this but you need to think about how this is perceived by a jury selected by the prosecution.

"Defendant says he bought all of these items before the ban but then he removed all the manufacture dates that would prove that. Why would he do that unless he was actually intending to or had bought magazines AFTER the ban?"

It doesn't matter what WE think as gun owners or believers in the Constitution -- you've got to think about what the other 12 citizens are going to think as they are led down the garden path by a prosecutor as inept and malicious as the ones who went after Rittenhouse. You can't depend on having jurors as independent and intelligent as the ones that acquitted Kyle.