View Full Version : Continuous possession question.
This may have already been asked (didn't see it though). Will the continuous possession piece of the mag ban affect those of us who fly with our firearms? When we go to the airport, declare our unloaded firearm and then hand our baggage (with the firearm and magazine(s) in it) over to the TSA agent in that little room where they scan it and check it before sending us on our merry little way... does that count as NON-continuous possession? And if so... does that mean we can no longer fly with our firearms???
I don't think anyone knows. The Governor stated that there would be something forthcoming as the law is written to help clarify the "possession", and the "readily converted" parts of the law...
robertcolorado2009
03-25-2013, 14:25
So something that isn;t even known has been made into law? What a crock of shit, how can anyone vote on this, flip a coin ala Hudak??? I guess that's the new mormal for legislators. "Give it your best shot"
They intentionally made it vague so they can interpret it however they want and then that interpretation can evolve to whatever they want it to be in the future.
Aloha_Shooter
03-25-2013, 14:45
I guess that's the new mormal for legislators. "Give it your best shot"
No, the new normal for Democrat legislators is to claim whatever you think the voters will believe before new elections, claim they didn't read it well enough when errors are pointed out after passage and then distort it to do whatever they want when the dust clears.
Great-Kazoo
03-25-2013, 14:58
This may have already been asked (didn't see it though). Will the continuous possession piece of the mag ban affect those of us who fly with our firearms? When we go to the airport, declare our unloaded firearm and then hand our baggage (with the firearm and magazine(s) in it) over to the TSA agent in that little room where they scan it and check it before sending us on our merry little way... does that count as NON-continuous possession? And if so... does that mean we can no longer fly with our firearms???
Really, you're over ANALizing the whole deal. It is "interpreted" to mean not selling, trading or handing off, at least for now. Unless you walk around with them attached to your person, you are never in " continuous possession"
rockhound
03-25-2013, 16:00
Words mean what i say they mean
They are vague on purpose, dont you know you have to pass the law in order to find out what's in it
jerrymrc
03-25-2013, 16:01
Words mean what i say they mean
They are vague on purpose, dont you know you have to pass the law in order to find out what's in it
And we know how well that one is going.[LOL]
Really, you're over ANALizing the whole deal. It is "interpreted" to mean not selling, trading or handing off, at least for now. Unless you walk around with them attached to your person, you are never in " continuous possession"
I don't see how that is over ANALizing at all. I'm "handing off" my magazine(s) [in my luggage] to TSA agents at an airport... both to and from my destination. I guess you think the law is pretty cut and dry and there is an "implied" but surefire exemption for traveling with firearms through an airport? I didn't think it was OBVIOUSly cut and dry at all but maybe I'm missing something.
I don't see how that is over ANALizing at all. I'm "handing off" my magazine(s) [in my luggage] to TSA agents at an airport... both to and from my destination. I guess you think the law is pretty cut and dry and there is an "implied" but surefire exemption for traveling with firearms through an airport? I didn't think it was OBVIOUSly cut and dry at all but maybe I'm missing something.
that is what it means for now. that is how everyone interpreted it. (I'm afraid I agree with Jim this time)
The trouble with it, which you hit on, is the literal definition can be used to confiscate them at any time. It is just the same as the Readily converted part. Meaning now is "Don't own an extension if you have a post ban mag." Meaning in the future is any mag with removale a floorplate is verboten.
It'll be sadly amusing if the day comes when we clamor for them to enforce existing laws and they decide to enforce this one to the letter.
buckshotbarlow
03-25-2013, 18:37
Looks like the tsa is gonna make out on mags...or the city of denver! I know that cheyenne's airport doesn't have these problems...
Looks like the tsa is gonna make out on mags...or the city of denver! I know that cheyenne's airport doesn't have these problems...
That would be the case if TSA could "enforce" local laws. I don't think they have authority to enforce local laws. Nothing saying they can't contact local law enforcement and hold you until they get there if they think you are in violation of local laws though. If there is so much gray area and implied this and that in this law... I don't know how they OR the LEO could enforce it. Sounds like a lot of lawsuits coming up if we are stuck with implied interpretation. I'm not allowed to "hand off" to my neighbor but I am allowed to "hand off" to a TSA agent (though the law doesn't explicitly exempt or state that). The 14th amendment says that the law must be rational and clear but I don't see how "clear" the law can be when there has to be implied interpretation when it comes to enforcement.
BPTactical
03-25-2013, 20:12
OK, here is a conundrum caused by this choice piece of legislation: Party X takes magazine fed firearm that is malfunctioning to party XXX for repair. Party XXX needs the magazines to verify correct operation. Party X leaves magazines with party XXX for repair purposes.
Party X and XXX have violated 1224 have they not?
Apparently it is all left up to interpretation! I guess it is all left up to the responding officer and how they want to interpret the law... and depending on how they interpret it... then it is left up to the interpretation of the prosecuting attorney... and ultimately left up to the interpretation of a judge and/or a jury of your peers.
Lots of room for misinterpretation in all of that interpretation.
The continous possession issue is arbitrary, vague and capricious - and its one one the main challenges to the law. The Gov's signing statement put it into the attorney general's lap to figure out what it means. The attorney general has stated, off thew record, that he cannot be asked to interpret the law as written since it was legislator that wrote the law and definition. The only thing the AG can do is give advice/directives to DA's on what it should mean.
In speaking to many legal people about this everyone has stated unequivocally that the wording can be interpreted to mean the most stringent definition - and barring any other definition accepted by the courts - that is the one we should all go with.
"Yes sir. I shower with these.."
OT - asmo - terrific quote
In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free. -- Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
This is right where we're at, underlines are mine.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-25-2013, 21:18
OK, here is a conundrum caused by this choice piece of legislation: Party X takes magazine fed firearm that is malfunctioning to party XXX for repair. Party XXX needs the magazines to verify correct operation. Party X leaves magazines with party XXX for repair purposes.
Party X and XXX have violated 1224 have they not?
I'd wondered the exact same thing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.