Magazine senario question

[lowbeyond]

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.

Technical guidance means nothing under the law

[hurley842002]

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

That about sums it up...

[MarkCO]

Technical guidance means nothing under the law

This is like arguing with a 2 year old. Go get your dictionary out and then read the judges order. It is really pretty simple.

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.

Since you apparently can't understand the English language or understand the Judges order, if you are anything close to begin the average juror, then you are right, probably screwed. However, in my experience on the stand, most jurors can understand the Judges orders and jury instructions.

At least with Liberals, I know what they are trying to do. With these guys, who knows...maybe liberal plants to make all the gun owners skered.

PS. Did you even read the quote (from the Judges order) in post #19 that says you are totally wrong?

[spqrzilla]

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

You know, I've tried to be polite to you. I guess that was wasted time and energy.

You claim that the Attorney General's guidance was based on reading of "legal precedent". In legal terms, a "precedent" is a prior decision of a court. Binding precedent would be a decision of a court that has appellate authority over the sitting court. In the entire three pages of the "guidance", the Attorney General cites not a single court decision for any purpose at all. The guidance is merely filled with repetitions of the phrase "cannot reasonably be read". Moreover, the applicability of CRS 18-1-504(c)(2) is a grey area because the legislation itself did not designate the Attorney General as the official with the authority to issue regulations, interpret or enforce it as its a general criminal law. The legislation actually gives authority to the CBI to create rules regarding the required markings on magazines but there is no authority in the legislation for rule making on the meaning of the terms "continuous possession" nor language on convertibility. CRS 18-1-504(c)(2) has little case law on the scope of things like an Attorney General's interpretation as applied to criminal laws. Lastly, CRS 18-1-504(c)(2) when it does apply creates an "affirmative defense" which means the defendant has to present evidence that they relied upon the interpretation to prevail.

And of course, when the Attorney General is replaced and his replacement issues a different "guidance" ...

Now I wrote that in English, but I don't know if the words were small enough.

[spqrzilla]

And by the way, the District Court that issued the temporary injunction is a Federal District Court - which does not have the jurisdiction to make binding precedent upon Colorado state district courts when interpreting Colorado state law.

[Sharpienads]

I'm so confused

[MarkCO]

I'm so confused

[tmckay2]

heres my question. i used to live in illinois. all my family lives there. i still have some mags and various assorted items there. can they mail them to me? or can i go home to illinois for xmas and bring them back with me? they can't prove i didn't own them, but i can't prove i did.

[spqrzilla]

heres my question. i used to live in illinois. all my family lives there. i still have some mags and various assorted items there. can they mail them to me? or can i go home to illinois for xmas and bring them back with me? they can't prove i didn't own them, but i can't prove i did.

Not sure what you expect for an answer to that question. If you are asking whether or not its possible for you to get away with what is apparently an illegal act ... well, the probability is that you can. How does that answer help you out?

[Ronin13]

heres my question. i used to live in illinois. all my family lives there. i still have some mags and various assorted items there. can they mail them to me? or can i go home to illinois for xmas and bring them back with me? they can't prove i didn't own them, but i can't prove i did.

See? It's questions like this- technically you own them, right? So if "they" (prosecutor) can't prove you didn't own them prior to, then there's no case and you're g2g.