Temporary injunction hearing tomorrow

[Demodave]

i was going to say something yesterday about the lack of gun shops on the list. There is one shop in Northern Colorado who is non stop shit talking about the new laws, but no their name is not on the list. It must be so much easier to talk than to act.

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....

[BPTactical]

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....

Right there with you Dave, I spoke to Kopel after the suit had been filed and was told that:
1-they wanted to keep the list manageable.
2-the suit had already been filed.

Aggravating as hell.

[SA Friday]

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.

[sniper7]

Well that news blows.

And I'll remember the fence sitters. I say we make a list.

[asmo]

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:

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 following statement is to be attributed to Attorney General John W. Suthers:

“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.”

[Zundfolge]

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.

[lowbeyond]

that is what i am thinking as well....

[zulu01]

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.

This is my concern as well. Dave Kopel is a pretty smart guy so hopefully this is not the case.

[Ronin13]

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.

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.

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.

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).

[battle_sight_zero]

Sadly its because many of them benefit from the elimination of the private sales market.


At any rate, is there going to be a live stream of this hearing anywhere?

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.