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.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
I don't think it detracts from the letter's credibility.
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
I don't think it detracts from the letter's credibility.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunner
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.
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.
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.
That is internet gold!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
Anyway, what about the likelihood of line item veto to remove only a portion? Can that be done in state gubments?