Magazine senario question

[O2HeN2]

Ironically, if you own some >15 round magazines, go on vacation out of state for a month (leaving the mags at home) and come back it could be argued that you're now in violation of the law.

Depends on how you store them. In a safe with no access by anyone else, you're good to go.

Also a careful reading of the law reveals that there is no "residency requirement", either for the owner or the magazine. Which means ten years from now someone can move to Colorado with magazines that hold more than 15 rounds -- if and only if they possessed the magazines before July 1st, 2013.

O2

[merl]

Your first mistake would be a consenting to a search of your vehicle.

or having them in plain view. A-friggin-mazing that you are more likely to get arrested for having a beta mag on the passenger seat than a brick of weed.

[Great-Kazoo]

or having them in plain view. A-friggin-mazing that you are more likely to get arrested for having a beta mag on the passenger seat than a brick of weed.

The weed's hiding 1/2 kilo of tar heroin. win - win.

[def90]

So are we to believe the attorney general, whose staff researched and came up with a position based on legal precedent, who is providing basis for charging or not charging persons in Colorado based on 1224, or a dude on the internet who believes it is insignificant? Hmm, that is a tough one.

Actually it does matter. The AG's memo is only that, legally it is only a "suggestion" and local law enforcement can make what they want of it. The "suggestion" can also be changed at any time. In the end the only law that matters is what the text of the original bill states.

Essentially based on your logic an AG would be able to write whatever law they want by simply putting out a "memo".

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

[MarkCO]

Actually it does matter. The AG's memo is only that, legally it is only a "suggestion" and local law enforcement can make what they want of it. The "suggestion" can also be changed at any time. In the end the only law that matters is what the text of the original bill states.

Essentially based on your logic an AG would be able to write whatever law they want by simply putting out a "memo".

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

Yes, legally it bears no weight. However, it is constructed in much the same way as a supreme court weighs their decisions and IS based on legal precedents, not internet assumptions.

My logic???...you are not even in left field with that one. To see the game you at least have to be in the stadium. I never said it was law nor that the memo had legal authority. However, the AG, with a team of clerks researches legal decisions with similar words, phrases or impact and provides guidance based on that research. However, a few of you would rather believe some guy on the internet. Does you not realize how absurd your position is? Guess not.

[spqrzilla]

So are we to believe the attorney general, whose staff researched and came up with a position based on legal precedent, who is providing basis for charging or not charging persons in Colorado based on 1224, or a dude on the internet who believes it is insignificant? Hmm, that is a tough one.

There is no "legal precedent" involved.

Oh, and it was the previous Attorney General who issued an opinion that said that University of Colorado could ban concealed carry on campus.

So it may actually be a tough one for you.

[Circuits]

The AG's memo has the force of law, FOR NOW, because a judge granted a preliminary injunction that says so, in the sheriff's lawsuit vs the state over HB1224.

[MarkCO]

There is no "legal precedent" involved.

HOGWASH! The entire process involved researching legal precedent in order to form the guidance. Do you speak english???

[MarkCO]

12.The Technical Guidance is an “official written interpretation” of HB13-1224.
It has been adopted by the Governor and the Colorado Department of Public
Safety. Official written interpretations of criminal laws are binding and
create an affirmative defense for individuals charged under those laws. See
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-504(2)(c) (providing an affirmative defense to criminal
prosecutions contrary to “official written interpretation of the statute or law
relating to the offense, made or issued by a public servant, agency, or body
legally charged or empowered with the responsibility of administering,
enforcing, or interpreting” it).

But nevermind, spqrzilla and def90 are certainly smarter and better informed than the AG or the judge, so you all should listen to them.

[def90]

But nevermind, spqrzilla and def90 are certainly smarter and better informed than the AG or the judge, so you all should listen to them.

Feel free to be the 1st person to challenge this.. good luck. Once again, the state AG can write whatever they want but unless you are being tried in their court it doesn't mean much.

The Boulder County DA can do what he wants regardless of some recommendation that the Co AG writes up and all he has to do is cite the bill that was passed by the state legislators.

As far as legal precedent goes there is none
Why do you think the Colorado sheriffs are suing the state in Federal court?

It's going to eventually come down to how much money are you willing to spend to defend yourself for a $20 piece of metal/plastic.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2