Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Magazine senario question
Say I go hunting in another state and I have a magazine over 15 round capacity with me. I own the magazine before July 1 but take it out of state after that date. I should be able to bring it back into the state if it was a grandfathered mag. How is this proven if the State Police stop you?
The magazine would be legal because you maintained "continuous possession" (it's my understanding that people that are not currently residents of Colorado can move here with their >15 rd mags assuming they owned them before next 7/1/13 as well).Originally Posted by belizejet
It can't ... which is why the law is unenforceable (and will eventually be overturned in court).How is this proven if the State Police stop you?
Ironically, if you own some >15 round magazines, go on vacation out of state for a month (leaving the mags at home) and come back it could be argued that you're now in violation of the law.
Last edited by Zundfolge; 06-24-2013 at 10:20.
Modern liberalism is based on the idea that reality is obligated to conform to one's beliefs because; "I have the right to believe whatever I want".
"Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.
-Friedrich Nietzsche
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people."
-Penn Jillette
A World Without Guns <- Great Read!
Right you are. That would be one side of the argument.
Another side that YOU can argue is that you maintained constructive possession.
There are at least 2 types of "possession" recognized by the courts:
1) ACTUAL possession - You have physical possession of an item
2) CONSTRUCTIVE possession - You have the means to control access to an item to achieve physical (aka actual) possession
EX:
Someone steals your credit card number. They did not steal your physical card, though.
They have constructive possession of your credit card...that is using the CC number, they can act in a manner as if they had your physical CC in hand.
They can be charged with CC theft even though they did not actually steal the CC.
EX: Leave home for a month and leave your mags in your house.
You will still maintain constructive possession, by having the key to access your house and those mags, as you meet the requirements for grandfathered mags.
1) You OWNED them before 01JUL13
2) You maintained continuous possession (either ACTUAL or CONSTRUCTIVE)
This post is my opinion and is not to be regarded as "official legal advice" .
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
The fattest knight at King Arthur’s round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much π.
Likewise the law says "a person may own" , thus defining the rules for a single-person owner.
It does NOT say "there cannot be co-owners, trusts as owners, companies as owners", etc.
It says nothing about the rules for "co-owners" of a magazine.
While one might think that the law implies "there cannot be co-owners" becuse of the "a" in "a person", laws are very explicit about what is and is not allowed and try to leave little to be "implied": i.e. the "letter" of the law versus the "spirit" of the law.
If the law was intended to prohibit "co-owners" a clause such as "magazines may only be owned by a single person" or "multi-party ownership of mags is prohibited" or "magazines may NOT be owned by a trust having multiple beneficiaries" etc.
Again, the law describes the rules for "a [single] person".
As such, it is plausible to have co-owners of a mag, provided they also meet the "a [single] person" grandfathering criteria to allow single perosn usage of the mags:
1) Own before 01JUL13
2) Maintain continuous possession (actual or constructive)
In theory, one can have co-owners of a mag.
EX:
1) You declare you, your wife, and kids are co-owners of some mags today to meet the "owned before 01JUL13" condition
2) You, your wife, and kids all have keys to your house and can access the mags at any time to meet the "Maintain continuous [constructive] possession" clause
Note: If the mags are also locked in your safe to which only YOU had the key/combination, (2) would not be met by your family, your family would not meet the "grandfather clause" and could not legally be considered as owners of the mags
While this seems like a "loophole", there are drawbacks to this as well.
Yes, the law is silly and poorly written. Hopefully it will "go away and never come back to haunt us in any re-written/revised form".
No, I'm not trying to stir up an argument...
...those of you that know me, know I just like to open up discussions that "test" the boundaries of things, such as this goofy law.
...those of you that don't know me, probably think I have too much time on my hands
This post is my opinion and is not to be considered "official legal advice" .
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
The fattest knight at King Arthur’s round table was Sir Cumference. He acquired his size from too much π.
Since we don't have a state police in Colorado, it shouldn't be an issue.
“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defense and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” Andrew Jackson
A veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to 'The United States of America ' for an amount of 'up to and including my life.'
That is Honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.
Or they will be banned completely. I thinks that's a possibility.
Your first mistake would be a consenting to a search of your vehicle.
The Great Kazoo's Feedback
"when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".
Don't rely too much on the Attorney General's "guidance", its debatable what that memo's actual effect is. I believe it has no legal significance.
Sayonara
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote