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

[ray1970]

"Burden of proof is on the prosecution"

At least that's what is written into the law.

[O2HeN2]

"Burden of proof is on the prosecution"

At least that's what is written into the law.

...and this is where plastic magazine mold dates will get you in trouble. One wonders what would happen with a metal magazine having a plastic follower with a date after 2013...

O2

[CS1983]

...and this is where plastic magazine mold dates will get you in trouble. One wonders what would happen with a metal magazine having a plastic follower with a date after 2013...

O2

I like to # my mags with a soldering iron, and the mold date always seemed like a convenient location. Is this against the law?

[Kraven251]

Pretty sure with the current wording on that if you bought it in another state, etc if you came into possession of this after the date and you weren't in the state of CO or even yet it was warranty replacement part, ...the list goes on and on, which is why so many Sheriffs said it was shit and unenforceable.

[.455_Hunter]

I can name several gun shops in Denver Metro who have dispensed with even disassembling the mags, and have factory sealed Magpuls on the rack under a sign "Parts Kits". Other shops are just selling the mags straight over the counter, especially to known customers.

[spqrzilla]

I can name several gun shops in Denver Metro who have dispensed with even disassembling the mags, and have factory sealed Magpuls on the rack under a sign "Parts Kits". Other shops are just selling the mags straight over the counter, especially to known customers.

I know. And if anyone buys those with a credit card, they are a moron.

And by the way, someone implied that destroying the mold date on a plastic body magazine would be sufficient. Nope, that a magazine has a destroyed mold date would in fact be admissible evidence that it was an illegally possessed magazine.

[Rucker61]

P

I know. And if anyone buys those with a credit card, they are a moron.

And by the way, someone implied that destroying the mold date on a plastic body magazine would be sufficient. Nope, that a magazine has a destroyed mold date would in fact be admissible evidence that it was an illegally possessed magazine.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.