My friend, his 17rd magazines, and a trip to Colorado

[alan0269]

Here is a link to clarification on the magazine law on CBI's website:

http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/docs/0516...%20%281%29.pdf

It says you can transfer a "high capacity" magazine to someone you are shooting with at the range, provided the intent is that the magazine will be immediately returned when they are done shooting. The owner of the magazine must remain present where the magazine is.

[Gman]

A Glock magazine is a Glock magazine. If you can't keep track, I'm sure law enforcement will have a difficult time.

...there may be something to that lawsuit from the Colorado Sheriffs'.

[james_bond_007]

Here is a link to clarification on the magazine law on CBI's website:

http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/docs/0516...%20%281%29.pdf

It says you can transfer a "high capacity" magazine to someone you are shooting with at the range, provided the intent is that the magazine will be immediately returned when they are done shooting. The owner of the magazine must remain present where the magazine is.

Thanks for finding this and presenting this.
Nothing personal, but this ranks right up there with "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true."

I find it interesting that a letter had to be written to clarify a law that had not yet gone into effect. Duh?
Yes, there were enough questions raised about the language in the law BEFORE it was ratified to warrant a rewrite.
Why not just take time and write the law "better" from the start, to obviate the need for "clarifications" ?
I think it has to do with the Dems trying to impress Washington politicians, in hopes of advancing their political career and
not wanting to do what was right, but wanting to show party allegiance and power to ram home whatever they wanted. If I remember the debate, no Dem was willing to discuss and debate the issues. Many hours of Rep trying to persuade and challenge the Dems to rebut. Nada.

The letter is pretty much worthless in a court of law (the letter evens SAYS so in its introduction). The court rulings will consider the laws and related cases. A letter of guidelines from the gov (or whomever) is just a suggestion on how to manage situations BEFORE they get to court. The "guidelines" are also subject to interpretation and are not legally binding. They are suggestions, as interpreted by John Suthers, Colorado Attorney General. Others may read the law and interpret them differently. Let's hope a judge does not interpret them dis-favorably in one's "hour of need".

Please don't do something bad and place all your hope to make it better based on the "gov's guideline letter."
It ain't gonna happen. If it ever gets as far as court...you are screwed.

Stage Direction:
(...007 stepping down from soapbox)

NOTE: This post is my opinion and does not construe legal advice.

[Kraven251]

you mean the ones you were selling in the trading post?

hehe, the ones I bought ...was just thinking about that

[DingleBerns]

Please see post #11. I was selling 17rd Glock mags in the trading post? I would like to see proof of that Dingle.

See post #24 , and too late now to prove beyond a reasonable doubt since the TP is gone. just bustin' yer ballz

[alan0269]

Thanks for finding this and presenting this.
Nothing personal, but this ranks right up there with "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true."

I would say it's quite a bit better than the "I saw it on the internet, so it must be true" reference.

1) Posted on the CBI website.
2) Presented by the Attorney General for Colorado.
3) The statement you speak of (“Although this guidance is not binding on the courts, it is based upon existing legal principles and represents a fair and accurate reading of the legislation.”) references that it is based on existing legal principles and represents a "fair and accurate reading of the legislation".
4) It also states in the document that this is the "technical guidance requested by the Governor", which can be construed as evidence that the Governor used this information in some form as a basis for his decision to sign the legislation into law.

Is it perfect? No, but then again nothing is perfect for defense in court - different judges interpret laws differently (one of the flaws of our judicial system). I too am not a lawyer, but based on the wording of the document, I feel pretty confident that if someone were to go to court for letting their buddy use one of their "high capacity" magazines while with them at the range and presented this documented interpretation of the legislation/law they (or their attorney) should be able to have a successful defense. As this is posted on CBI's website (not Joe Shmoe's interpretation on his blog), I would also think that it could be argued successfully in court that if the government office for the state that oversees firearms is providing this information to the general public as a guide it should stand in court as well. As always, we should all consult an attorney to be sure of anything like this, but even then their interpretation may be different than that of a judge/court.

[lowbeyond]

My thoughts...

Him putting his mags in your gun seems fine.
Him then handing the gun/mag combo to you crosses the line for both of you.
Sharing the gun is OK (per 1229) sharing the mags is not (per 1224).

Do you see it this way ?

What "bonehead" passes laws like this anyway ?

Who cares.

Ignore the stupid fukking laws. Break them on purpose.

Fukkem