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.






Reply With Quote
