Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
It's possession of a magazine holding more than 15 rounds which you did not continuously possess since before 7-1-13.
Proving it, without date stamps, not easy for the prosecutor. Proviing it, with date stamps, too easy.
Big issues, yes, but this isn't one of them.
Originally Posted by 10mm-man
From a prosecutors stand point; maybe not. But how about the cops who decides he wants to enforce it; is he gonna take your word you bought them while you lived out of state? How many people moved into (Colorado) after July 1 with a date stamped on the mag after??? Sounds like a big cluster F'...
Since the burden rest with the prosecution; are they going to use the date stamp for of a conviction?
Last edited by 10mm-man; 08-18-2013 at 20:50.
I have no idea if a jury would accept a post 7-1-13 date stamp as proof that a magazine wasn't continuously possessed since before 7-1-13. I would assume that most jurors would, though, since it's not easy to possess something in June, 2013, that wasn't made until July.
I can sort of see some prosecutor needing to produce a witness who can explain Magpul's date-stamp method to the jury, in order to make a date stamp admissible. But I don't see Magpul busting their collective asses trying to cooperate with that.
Where the defendant bought the magazine doesn't even matter once he's possessed it in Colorado, unless I'm badly mis-reading the statute.
Like you said, what a big cluster.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote