Please explain this to me.
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/man-arrested-after-allegedly-firing-gun-in-garden-of-the-gods-running-from-policeQuote:
Copeland allegedly had two guns and ammunition in his vehicle, according to police. He is charged with DUI, eluding arrest, reckless driving and endangerment, prohibited use of a weapon and carrying a large-capacity magazine.
Yeah that one has me curious as well
My guess: it's an add on charge for possession of a post-ban, larger than 15 round magazine. The prosecutor is kitchen sinking the guy to gain leverage for an eventual plea deal.
The high cap won't stick, there are about 100 ways around that, but the DUI and all the rest of it is more than enough to dick him over.
It is a poorly written sentence, each media outlet has it worded differently.
It's illegal, prima facie, to possess a large (>15) capacity magazine in Colorado since 1 July 2013. Defense is proving possession before that date.
First time I've seen it actually charged, so far, but doesn't bode well for the future.
Our bulwark so far has been that about 95% of law enforcement agencies have pledged they will not enforce it, due to vagueness and unprovability, but apparently that's changing.
The Prosecution has to prove or Defense? How does one prove they bought something before a certain date? Seems the onus is on the prosecution, not the defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
"Burden of proof is on the prosecution"
At least that's what is written into the law.
...and this is where plastic magazine mold dates will get you in trouble. One wonders what would happen with a metal magazine having a plastic follower with a date after 2013...Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
O2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
I believe you misunderstood what Circuits meant. I believe he was saying that proof of possession is your best defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
I like to # my mags with a soldering iron, and the mold date always seemed like a convenient location. Is this against the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
Pretty sure with the current wording on that if you bought it in another state, etc if you came into possession of this after the date and you weren't in the state of CO or even yet it was warranty replacement part, ...the list goes on and on, which is why so many Sheriffs said it was shit and unenforceable.
I can name several gun shops in Denver Metro who have dispensed with even disassembling the mags, and have factory sealed Magpuls on the rack under a sign "Parts Kits". Other shops are just selling the mags straight over the counter, especially to known customers.
The guy that threatened to shoot up the community college up here was originally charged but it was dropped when the federal charges were brought against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
I guess the way I'd phrase it is thus:
Possession of a large capacity mag (>15 rounds) is grounds for an inquiry - was the mag legally possessed before 1 July 2013? Regardless of where the burden of proof lies, it is a reasonable locus of suspicion, now, for investigation, because possession after that date constitutes a crime.
A prosecutor, as the law is currently written and interpreted, would have to end up proving that those mags were NOT in the defendant's lawful possession before 7/1/2013 to achieve a conviction, but any prosecutorial efforts expended in that endeavor would not be deemed frivolous or misguided before the fact.
Things seems to be turning in CO, where "you might beat the rap, but not the ride", and we Coloradoans have been very cavalier about that possibility before now.
Whoa there trooper- I was simply reporting a fact about how many shops are openly and now flagrantly disregarding the law- nothing more, nothing less.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
One of Trump's main firearms issues during the campaign was to eliminate restrictions on magazine capacity. It is actually still listed on his website. Curious if his administration will be able to help out our bogus law on this.
Onus is on the Prosecution to prove the law was broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Circuits
As of early spring, there had been 9 others charged with possession of an illegal magazine, 8 have had that charge dismissed and 1 case was still pending, at least as of early spring.
Most the Sheriffs have said they will not pursue charges related to the law, but they are a small percentage of the LEAs in the state.
Nothing has changed at all. Still a boggus law, still on the books. But lets at least be accurate about it.
I know. And if anyone buys those with a credit card, they are a moron.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
And by the way, someone implied that destroying the mold date on a plastic body magazine would be sufficient. Nope, that a magazine has a destroyed mold date would in fact be admissible evidence that it was an illegally possessed magazine.
PHow would the prosecution prove that the magazine was made and purchased after July 1, 2013 with no date?Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
And
Rucker61...is this your "And"
Based on the allowance to repair...only 1 part of a magazine needs to be originally purchased prior to July 1, 2013.
The fact that the date was obscured is itself admissable evidence that the magazine date was post July 1, 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Who cares? Be an idiot win idiot prizes.
Actually the "and" was a placeholder to let me space while typing that didn't get deleted.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkCO
I'm no the lawyer, but it seems that it would easily get overturned on appeal, as no date code would be circumstancial evidence at best. There are magazine that are produced without date codes, I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
It is unlikely the prosecutor has made these charges at this point after a thursday night arrest. It will be interesting to see if he is actually charged with the magazine crime
Really? That's what we're going with on an AR site?Quote:
Originally Posted by sneakerd
It sounds like it really comes down to how mags are marked.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
The introduction of an unmarked mag should give rise to reasonable doubt. Reinforced with a receipt/record of any magazine purchase prior to July 1, 2013. Mags aren't serialized (at least mine aren't).
The introduction of a mag that was marked and intentionally defaced probably wouldn't help a defendant.
A mag marked prior to July 1, 2013 I would think is problematic for the prosecution unless they can prove there was no possession of that mag prior to July 1, 2013.
I still believe this is the worst of the Rapsheet Rhonda laws we got screwed with. Any and all resources should to getting this one removed.
Seems pretty difficult to ask for receipts of purchase on items purchased years ago where the retention of proof of purchase was not needed.
My aluminum "GI" mags have no date stamp. The lack of a stamp would be held against me? I don't think so.
Plastic mags were usually date stamped as an internal reference by the manufacturer. Using them to identify whether the magazine meets some arbitrary date in legislation is a new concept.
This is yet another reason I like GI mags made on LaBelle tooling.
(Although it appears that D&H has started date stamping their GI mags)
I think unmarked is reasonable doubt absent anyone who can prove that mag was not in possession July 1, 2013. I have several of these as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
I think any receipt for that type of mag would suffice (if I'm on the jury). I have emails going back to 1999 that are backed up regularly. For more reasons than just the mag ban for me. If I go to court and show receipts for mags prior to July 1, 2013 then it's reasonable to assume I purchased the unmarked mags prior as well as I had use for them.
The problem with a mold marking is that a mark after July 1, 2013 could not logically be in possession prior to that date. As stated above, all they really have to do is get a letter from the manufacturer explaining how the marks work.
The legislation is shit for multiple reasons but it creates an expectation.