Magpul legal document to Hickenlooper

[Gunner]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqum7rzdzwi7vgh/1224%20veto%20%282%29.pdf

Hope the link works

[hurley842002]

Read it as well, glad to see Magpul spelling out the bullshit for Hickenpooper, too bad he won't listen.

[Dave]

I'm pretty sure they are hoping the vague definitions get a good amount of us arrested and convicted so they can point to arrest statistics in campaigns to show how many "dangerous criminals" were taken off the streets.

[Clint45]

I'm pretty sure they are hoping the vague definitions get a good amount of us arrested and convicted so they can point to arrest statistics in campaigns to show how many "dangerous criminals" were taken off the streets.

You mean "arms traffickers" selling "illegal guns" fitted with "prohibited high capacity ammunition feeding devices" . . . all of which is legalese weasel words for "he traded a 10/22 with a 30 round mag to his neighbor for a beat up SKS capable of accepting a prohibited mag."

[DHCO]

The sks is banned outright. Fixed capacity over 20 rounds so its verboten in Colorado after July 1st and the document seems to indicate that it isn't even grandfathered.

[merl]

I'm pretty sure they are hoping the vague definitions get a good amount of us arrested and convicted so they can point to arrest statistics in campaigns to show how many "dangerous criminals" were taken off the streets.

I expect the class 6 felony addon charge so see some use. Anything that puts violent criminals out of circulation longer is a good thing.

The rest of it. I'm waiting for some tourist to get nailed because they CC a 18 round gun. That'll help the state.

[RedDogFabrication]

This document could be handy for the obvious upcoming defense people will need after July 1st.

[.455_Hunter]

and the SKS line of rifles which can have an internal ammunition source of 20 rounds.

How many SKS rifles do you know that have a 20 rd FIXED magazine???

Not that I am against the message, but I am kinda surprised Magpul used such a poor example in their "last stand" letter.

[mtnhack]

How many SKS rifles do you know that have a 20 rd FIXED magazine???

Not that I am against the message, but I am kinda surprised Magpul used such a poor example in their "last stand" letter.The rest of the letter wasn't enough for you?
That example was just pointing out yet ANOTHER of the *unintended* consequences of the POS bill and that this one will outright ban firearms, even if there aren't many out there.

[.455_Hunter]

The rest of the letter wasn't enough for you?

The bulk of the letter is great, but I think the comments about the SKS holding 20 rounds could lead someone to be dismissive about the whole document, especially when they know (or find out) that 99% of SKS's have a 10 round magazine.

And yes, I happen to own a 20 round fixed magazine for my SKS that I bought when this whole abomination statred in 1994.

[mtnhack]

The bulk of the letter is great, but I think the comments about the SKS holding 20 rounds could lead someone to be dismissive about the whole document, especially when they know (or find out) that 99% of SKS's have a 10 round magazine.

And yes, I happen to own a 20 round fixed magazine for my SKS that I bought when this whole abomination statred in 1994.I would think you would be especially thankful they threw that in there, seeing as how it is you that will be a criminal come july 1.

I don't think it detracts from the letter's credibility.

[Dave]

The bulk of the letter is great, but I think the comments about the SKS holding 20 rounds could lead someone to be dismissive about the whole document, especially when they know (or find out) that 99% of SKS's have a 10 round magazine.

And yes, I happen to own a 20 round fixed magazine for my SKS that I bought when this whole abomination statred in 1994.

If what the letter from Magpul's lawyers says is true the SKS wouldn't be banned if you have a 20 round fixed mag, it would be banned because it can accept a 20 round fixed mag.

[DHC]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqum7rzdzwi7vgh/1224%20veto%20%282%29.pdf

Hope the link works

Of some note, the legal firm representing Magpul in writing this letter to the governor (Holland & Hart) is one of the largest and most respected legal firms in the state. Their analysis of the legal language of the bill *will* have merit and I suspect the governor's staff is carefully examining it. While I doubt it will dissuade passage of the law, it most clearly establishes a legal foundation to challenge the law.

Has this letter been getting any 'press' in the media? If not, it seems to me this would be something to trumpet right now - today (prior to signing) - so that it is clear that Hickenlooper was fully aware of the many problems with this legislation, and signed it anyway. As the letter points out, that action is violative of one of Hickenlooper's sworn duties of office.

[Cthulhu]

Hypocritenlooper ... In his "state of the state" address he mentions jobs 7 times and gun control 3. He's vague on the gun control issue other than to talk about criminals and mental health issues. The only reason he might even consider a veto is because he knows a bad economy might boot he and his fellow socialist a$$hats out of power. He's in a pickle. Playact the left with Prosaic politics and publicly force a small business out of state or pretend to a leader and point out the fact that these bills do nothing to address the real problems. He must be wringing his slimy little hands over this. Johnny should remember that this is at it's core a pro-gun state and that pot leads to memory issues. The troglodyte voters just wanted their weed.

[Ronin13]

I hate to say it, great attempt by Magpul and their attorneys, but it's a moot point. These people don't care. "1224 is actually so vague that with the loose language it bans all magazines!" Wake up! THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT! Fields maybe a dumb you-know-what, but she is smart enough to know (despite what she told 9news) what this is doing. We can only hope that the courts will overturn this on the grounds of it being vague (intentionally vague at that) and unenforceable. But seriously, does anyone think Hick will suddenly come to his senses and think "ya know, they're right, this is too vague and too broad, I'm going to veto this"? Hell no. He's going to think that this aligns perfectly with the left agenda of getting rid of guns, one bill at a time, and go with it... the would-be law abiding populace be damned.

[mikedubs]

The troglodyte voters just wanted their weed.

That is internet gold!

Anyway, what about the likelihood of line item veto to remove only a portion? Can that be done in state gubments?