http://www.coloradoguncase.org/
Printable View
Lets hope the ball gets rolling on this thing quick. Any prognosticators out there care to share what may happen here? Are they pleading the case to a bunch of Liberal dildos that already have their minds made up or will it be heard by folks that can read the Constitution?
Denver= liberal dildos.... but one can hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPA
Tell you what, there are thousands of gun stores in this state. I know of more than a few in this area that make a butt load of money and are not on that list as plaintiffs. Keep that in mind next time you choose choose a gunstore. They are putting their money, information, and time on the lines for those much better off financially just sitting on the fence.
'The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.' Dante
Odd not to see more names and gun shops on there.
[werdo] [Dunno]Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
Yes. GMG was the only shop on there that I've been to.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
Maybe the other shops contribute in the other ways - I'm just guessing.
This is one thing I found quite surprising when listening to the testimonies at the Capitol.
All the shop owners I know were more concerned about making the sale than standing as a united front against the dildos.
Sadly its because many of them benefit from the elimination of the private sales market.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
At any rate, is there going to be a live stream of this hearing anywhere?
From the AP right now:
Quote:
A federal judge in Denver has refused to block a new Colorado state law that limits the size of ammunition magazines.Judge Marcia Krieger says she can't issue an injunction because the law already is in effect.
She spoke at a hearing on a lawsuit by Colorado sheriffs challenging the law, which went into effect July 1.
The law bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The sheriffs contend it violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arm
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...rado-limit-gun
Quote:
Judge: No need for injunction blocking Colorado limit on gun magazinesPOSTED: 07/10/2013 10:12:24 AM MDTBy Tom McGhee
UPDATED: 07/10/2013 10:15:07 AM MDT
The Denver Post
An effort by a group of sheriffs to block enforcement of Colorado's new limits on gun ammunition magazines stalled on Wednesday amid efforts to clarify the state's interpretation of the measure.
The sheriffs had asked Chief U.S. District Court Judge Marcia Krieger to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law.
But during a hearing Wednesday, Krieger noted that both sides in the lawsuit had just agreed that Attorney General John Suthers would redraft technical guidance on key provisions of the law.
Krieger said the agreement meant there is now no need for her to issue an injunction.
The law, passed in the recent legislative session, bans magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. It took effect July 1.
Read more:Judge: No need for injunction blocking Colorado limit on gun magazines - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz2Yf0vlqAU
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us:@Denverpost on Twitter|Denverpost on Facebook
Just in
Denver judge won't block Colorado gun magazine lawhttp://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23632165/colorado-sheriffs-seek-stop-gun-magazine-law
Complete and utter bullshit. Judges issue injunctions all the time against laws that are in dispute. The court refused to hold the hearing until today(despite a request for a preliminary injunction hearing before June 30), and then refuses to issue an injunction pending the outcome of the lawsuit?Quote:
Originally Posted by ghettodub
Can we recall judges? ;)
WOW! Wouldn't hear the case before the law took effect and now this!
Chicago style politics through and through, complete bull$hit!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Is there any wonder why no one has any faith in the gov't?
Because is not named on the "list" in the lawsuit has nothing to do with their actual involvement or opposition to the laws. I spent days at the capitol working to stop these silly laws and some of the "named" companies did not even show up. There were certainly some political issues in who was named, or not, but because a gunshop is not named does not mean that they did not want to be nor would they if given the opportunity. Marketing based on who is named is certainly the right of the named stores, but there is always more to the story.
According to Local Fox News, the Sheriffs who filed for the injunction, dropped the request.
"The group had filed a preliminary injunction with the U.S. District Court blocking enforcement of the law.
Judge Marcia Krieger ruled however there was no need to issue an injunction after both sides agreed that Attorney General John Suthers would draft technical guidance to help clarify the law."
http://kdvr.com/2013/07/10/sheriffs-...gazine-limits/
So to make sure I understand this correctly: so no injunction, but the suit is still full steam ahead. Well that sucks, but I sure hope we can get the state to see what kind of an asshat Hick is (lawsuits usually bring out the best in people... [Sarcasm2])
Would just like to ad that we are not the dealer you are referring to, but we were neither asked to join the lawsuit, or even knew of it's existence until the lawsuit was filed. If given the opportunity, we would have gladly joined the lawsuit, for the principal of the suit. We specialize in Long Range accuracy rigs, and have very limited hi cap items.... Again, if we would have been notified, solicited, etc, we would have joined the suit....Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
Right there with you Dave, I spoke to Kopel after the suit had been filed and was told that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Demodave
1-they wanted to keep the list manageable.
2-the suit had already been filed.
Aggravating as hell.
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.
Well that news blows.
And I'll remember the fence sitters. I say we make a list.
I know this is yesterday but I didn't see the language posted anywhere:
DENVER—Parties in the case of Cooke v. Hickenlooper have reached an agreement to withdraw the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The parties have agreed to language that the attorney general and governor will provide as technical guidance. At issue was what it means for a magazine to be “designed to be readily convertible” to one in excess of 15 rounds and what it means for a weapon to be in the “continuous possession” of its owner. Specifically, the additional guidance is that:
The following statement is to be attributed to Attorney General John W. Suthers:Quote:
Magazines with a capacity of 15 or fewer rounds are not large capacity magazines as defined in HB 13-1224 whether or not they have removable base plates. These baseplates themselves do not enable the magazines to be expanded, and they serve functions aside from expansion—notable, they allow the magazines to be cleaned and repaired. To actually convert them to higher capacity, one must purchase additional equipment or permanently alter their operation mechanically. Unless so altered, they are not prohibited.
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 Attorney General’s Office is pleased with the agreement that provides further clarity for the plaintiffs, gun owners and dealers in Colorado. The agreement is consistent with the reasonable, narrow reading of the statute that we have advocated and it now allows the court to expeditiously move to consideration of the Second Amendment implications of the statute.
Today’s agreement is consistent with our interpretation of the statute and the guidance the Attorney General’s Office and the Colorado Department of Public Safety issued pursuant to the governor’s direction and, pending final disposition of the case, the statute will be enforced in accordance with the guidance.”
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.
that is what i am thinking as well....
This is my concern as well. Dave Kopel is a pretty smart guy so hopefully this is not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
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 SA Friday
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by battle_sight_zero
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.
Which is by design.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
“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
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 KAPA
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:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
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:
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.
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.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge