Not at all true. Colorado state law is what is being discussed. There is no "reliance" upon the Commerce Clause, which is a provision of Congress' authority, not Colorado's.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Printable View
Not at all true. Colorado state law is what is being discussed. There is no "reliance" upon the Commerce Clause, which is a provision of Congress' authority, not Colorado's.Quote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Good point, but the definition may still be applicable, even if the state does not rely on the commerce clause... "my client is not a manufacturer"Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
But in the case of 1224, it's pretty much irrelevant anyway- since the law states "possesses", most of the mention of manufacturer/ing is in exceptions, so it wouldn't help unless you are one.
The only part it could possibly nullify would be 18-12-203, about the required markings for magazines manufactured in the State of Colorado... since a person repairing their own mag is not a "manufacturer"
The whole bill is written poorly, as if it was intended to obfuscate and confuse. (but we all already know that) [Beer]
I'm also not sure I can afford to pay my Lawyer to explain that in court [Coffee]
and my disclaimer still applies...
Or perhaps just no one gives 2 shits about the unenforceable law anyway? Figure a pending law-suit is in effect to abolish them anyhow. Every cop I've talked to said they wouldn't enforce it even if they knew the magazine was bought after 7/1/13. I ran into a police officer at Cabelas yesterday while browsing the store. She was stopping by to look for some reloading stuff for her hubby after work. The magazine capacity conversation came up and her words exactly, "Just go to another state and buy them, it isn't like anyone is checking anyway. All you have to say is, "I bought them a couple of years ago" and that's the end of it".Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
3 pages and no one has thought to actually look up the text of the law? Did I miss something?
If not, here:
http://coloradoguncase.org/1224-engrossed.pdf
And here are the letters of clarification from the AG:
http://coloradoguncase.org/051613_te...gazine_ban.pdf
http://coloradoguncase.org/7-10-13%2...ce%20Final.pdf
Squeeze, you really need to understand that there are LEO agencies out there that have political clowns looking to make a name for themselves with politicians. Not every department is signed onto the Independence Institute's lawsuit. Many city departments are not, and the various state agencies answer to Hickenlooper (D-Bloomberg).
It just takes one to jam up your day.
Justin, we've been going over the text of the law for months now. And the AG's memos, for what they are worth.
Dont ask, Dont tell. It applies. Fuck the dems and their nonsense. A kit isn't a full mag. As long as you Dont incriminate yourself their isn't shit they can do. Plead the 5th, tell them it is legal and you owned it before 7/1 and prove you didn't.
Oh, I know. I just thought it odd that it wasn't posted in this thread.Quote:
Justin, we've been going over the text of the law for months now. And the AG's memos, for what they are worth.
Just a guess, but I see the likely application of this law to be as a tacked on charge to give the DAs more leverage in obtaining plea bargains and getting co-conspirators to testify against each other, rather than an offense that will stand on its own. Kind of like charging someone with leaving the scene of an accident when they've committed a fatal hit and run. Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.
There was actually a section in the mag ban that was exactly that addon charge. Possession of a >15round mag obtained after July 1 during a felony or a crime of violence is itself a class 6 felony.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER