Garden of the Gods shooter charged with "carrying a large capacity magazine"

[MarkCO]

Rucker61...is this your "And"

Based on the allowance to repair...only 1 part of a magazine needs to be originally purchased prior to July 1, 2013.

[spqrzilla]

P

How would the prosecution prove that the magazine was made and purchased after July 1, 2013 with no date?
And

The fact that the date was obscured is itself admissable evidence that the magazine date was post July 1, 2013.

[sneakerd]

Who cares? Be an idiot win idiot prizes.

[Rucker61]

Rucker61...is this your "And"

Based on the allowance to repair...only 1 part of a magazine needs to be originally purchased prior to July 1, 2013.

Actually the "and" was a placeholder to let me space while typing that didn't get deleted.

[Rucker61]

go back to my Golden Rule: You do not win or lose on a technicality. If you obliterate the date, what is a jury going to believe? That you slipped on the bar of soap in the shower and a soldering iron fell from your hand and into the date stamp? Or that it was a post July 2013 date?

I'm no the lawyer, but it seems that it would easily get overturned on appeal, as no date code would be circumstancial evidence at best. There are magazine that are produced without date codes, I understand.

[funkymonkey1111]

It is unlikely the prosecutor has made these charges at this point after a thursday night arrest. It will be interesting to see if he is actually charged with the magazine crime

[kidicarus13]

Who cares? Be an idiot win idiot prizes.

Really? That's what we're going with on an AR site?

[Skip]

[snip]

ETA: The absence of a date code on a magazine by itself wouldn't be evidence of a crime. However, something like a PMAG, if the DA was really motivated, they could establish that they've always had date stamps through witness testimony. They wouldn't even necessarily need anyone from Magpul to testify to that. Even if the witness testimony is completely inaccurate (like metal magazines always have date stamps) and the jury relies on it that's not necessarily cause by itself to appeal. It's your obligation to challenge, discredit, and disprove the witness testimony, and if you had "opportunity" to then you didn't preserve error. Welcome to how our justice system doesn't work.

It sounds like it really comes down to how mags are marked.

The introduction of an unmarked mag should give rise to reasonable doubt. Reinforced with a receipt/record of any magazine purchase prior to July 1, 2013. Mags aren't serialized (at least mine aren't).

The introduction of a mag that was marked and intentionally defaced probably wouldn't help a defendant.

A mag marked prior to July 1, 2013 I would think is problematic for the prosecution unless they can prove there was no possession of that mag prior to July 1, 2013.

I still believe this is the worst of the Rapsheet Rhonda laws we got screwed with. Any and all resources should to getting this one removed.

[Gman]

Seems pretty difficult to ask for receipts of purchase on items purchased years ago where the retention of proof of purchase was not needed.

My aluminum "GI" mags have no date stamp. The lack of a stamp would be held against me? I don't think so.

Plastic mags were usually date stamped as an internal reference by the manufacturer. Using them to identify whether the magazine meets some arbitrary date in legislation is a new concept.

This is yet another reason I like GI mags made on LaBelle tooling.
(Although it appears that D&H has started date stamping their GI mags)

[Skip]

Seems pretty difficult to ask for receipts of purchase on items purchased years ago where the retention of proof of purchase was not needed.

My aluminum "GI" mags have no date stamp. The lack of a stamp would be held against me? I don't think so.

Plastic mags were usually date stamped as an internal reference by the manufacturer. Using them to identify whether the magazine meets some arbitrary date in legislation is a new concept.

This is yet another reason I like GI mags made on LaBelle tooling.

I think unmarked is reasonable doubt absent anyone who can prove that mag was not in possession July 1, 2013. I have several of these as well.

I think any receipt for that type of mag would suffice (if I'm on the jury). I have emails going back to 1999 that are backed up regularly. For more reasons than just the mag ban for me. If I go to court and show receipts for mags prior to July 1, 2013 then it's reasonable to assume I purchased the unmarked mags prior as well as I had use for them.

The problem with a mold marking is that a mark after July 1, 2013 could not logically be in possession prior to that date. As stated above, all they really have to do is get a letter from the manufacturer explaining how the marks work.

The legislation is shit for multiple reasons but it creates an expectation.