Temporary injunction hearing tomorrow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

I know there are those raising funds for the lawsuit and have contributed in other manners, but I also know there are some big time shops that have done nothing. I don't begrudge any company profit. Without it none of them exist. I don't like fence sitters and we all know more than a few of these companies. Just remember them.

---

Seems like this is not accurate- as BP pointed out, they wanted it to be a short list. I don't think they rallied to get every Pro-2A store in CO on board, otherwise I would expect to see 5280 (Matt & Gina have been extremely opposed to these laws, and vocal too), BluCore and many others on the list. I don't think anyone is fence sitting, I think this goes to show that Kopel didn't want to have a laundry list of FFL plaintiffs on there because he felt one or two would be enough to augment the business argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

I don't understand why folk like Jon Caldera and Sheriff Maketa are acting like this "compromise" thing is good ... it looks to me like they just mitigated one of the most egregious bits of the new law and thus undermined their case to have the entire thing thrown out.

Someone school me on why I'm wrong about this.

---

Can't find you being wrong at all on that. Besides, doesn't "compromise" mean BOTH sides are giving up something? Gun control has never had any compromise from the anti's- we're the ones that always give something up (usually not by choice either).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Sadly its because many of them benefit from the elimination of the private sales market.


At any rate, is there going to be a live stream of this hearing anywhere?

---

Personally I don't know if this is good for them with no FTF private sales. Many of my up purchases were funded by selling and trading to my fellow gun owners. However I am least likely to do a consignment or trade with big brother involved with my personal property. I believe our right to trade and sale was pretty good fuel for buying in the local gunshops. Without the ability to trade and sale in the past I would not have the good stuff I used to have. Shops suck with their trade in values and I wont deal with that when they give 1/3rd of what they sell it for. Personally I believe a lot of shops are going to tank, sorry but I believe that. Some of the shops look like freaking ghost towns right now and still have not changed their tactics or marketing ploys. At this point I want ammo- and I am not seeing it anywhere, and I am certainily not excited about California compliant arms. No interest in a G 17 with a 10 round mag here. However if a liberal reads this post and laughs and says the law is working, I say no it is not. Most people I know have enough stuff to last a lifetime and have been preparing for many years for the crap. Its to bad I lost my stuff in a recent boating accident, at least I have my Crossman BB GUN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by battle_sight_zero

Personally I don't know if this is good for them with no FTF private sales. Many of my up purchases were funded by selling and trading to my fellow gun owners. However I am least likely to do a consignment or trade with big brother involved with my personal property. I believe our right to trade and sale was pretty good fuel for buying in the local gunshops. Without the ability to trade and sale in the past I would not have the good stuff I used to have. Shops suck with their trade in values and I wont deal with that when they give 1/3rd of what they sell it for. Personally I believe a lot of shops are going to tank, sorry but I believe that. Some of the shops look like freaking ghost towns right now and still have not changed their tactics or marketing ploys. At this point I want ammo- and I am not seeing it anywhere, and I am certainily not excited about California compliant arms. No interest in a G 17 with a 10 round mag here. However if a liberal reads this post and laughs and says the law is working, I say no it is not. Most people I know have enough stuff to last a lifetime and have been preparing for many years for the crap. Its to bad I lost my stuff in a recent boating accident, at least I have my Crossman BB GUN.

---

Great point.. I would like to also add that this will encourage black market like any other prohibiting laws in the past.

So I am thinking that the goal of this injunction attempt yesterday was to get them to acknowledge that the wording was poor and that a clarification was needed. I remember reading somewhere that one of the requirements of a law in CO is that the average person has to be able to read it and understand it. Maybe yesterday was to prove that the law was vague at best and left too much open to interpretation? There is still a lawsuit in the works so this may be brought up again.

You guys really should follow Sheriff Justin Smith on Twitter and facebook if you aren't already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

Great point.. I would like to also add that this will encourage black market like any other prohibiting laws in the past.

---

Which is by design.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
―from Atlas Shrugged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KAPA

So I am thinking that the goal of this injunction attempt yesterday was to get them to acknowledge that the wording was poor and that a clarification was needed. I remember reading somewhere that one of the requirements of a law in CO is that the average person has to be able to read it and understand it. Maybe yesterday was to prove that the law was vague at best and left too much open to interpretation? There is still a lawsuit in the works so this may be brought up again.

You guys really should follow Sheriff Justin Smith on Twitter and facebook if you aren't already.

---

Similar to my 'thoughts" on the subject. IF they proceeded with the injunction, after concessions on both sides were made / acknowledged. Would any info they would have to produce, be something the left would be able to deny, or contest, through the lame stream media from now until the lawsuit. Thus diminishing the facts with their usual bloomberg bs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
―from Atlas Shrugged

---

That is a great quote from Atlas Shrugged. I just read that book last summer and was floored how accurate her ideas about socialism taking to the n'th degree would shape our Government. Scarry how many points that were made we are already there.

Quote:

---

The phrase “continuous” possession in HB 13-1224 shall be afforded its reasonable, every-day interpretation, which is the fact of having or holding property in one’s power or the exercise of dominion over property, that is uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance or extent. “Continuous possession” does not require a large-capacity magazine owner to maintain literally continuous physical possession of the magazine. “Continuous possession” is only lost by a voluntary relinquishment of dominion and control.

---

The above totally fails to address the issue of a firearm ( say a 22LR ) with a tube magazine or even just a magazine which is returned to the factory or other service facility for warranty repair and to be returned back to its owner (even by way of a 3rd party such as a gun store )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

Someone school me on why I'm wrong about this.

---

Ok, I've gotten one reasonable answer to this ... basically what I've been told is that the law is so ridiculous and poorly written that the clarification (which doesn't actually do anything since it can easily be changed at the whim of a future AG) isn't enough to actually mitigate the issue enough to reduce the case against it, however since the suit is going to take a year or two to wind its way through the system, the clarification will keep innocent people's lives from being ruined in the interim.

While I see that point, I also think a few egregious prosecutions of decent people would fire up the people even more and bolster the case against the law (that said I really don't want to be one of those cases, nor does anyone else).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

While I see that point, I also think a few egregious prosecutions of decent people would fire up the people even more and bolster the case against the law (that said I really don't want to be one of those cases, nor does anyone else).

---

I dont think we are going to hear about them if they ever do occur. I still don't see how you can prove anyone broke this law unless they are rollin with a brand new Pmag. Who else puts dates on mags? With all the shootings happening out there, unless it is an AR/AK, you never or at least rarely hear what type of gun was used. Maybe in a few years you will start to hear of Joe Shmo getting pulled over and while searching a car DPD finds a new Pmag or some other new style mag that was released after July 1, 13.