Hi-Cap clarification?

[O2HeN2]

18-12-302 (2):

(2) (a) A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she:
(I) Owns the large-capacity magazine on July 1, 2013; and
(II) Maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.
(b) If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.

[theGinsue]

That maybe what they said but the reality is many people have been charged with this. I've posted about it before

I may be incorrect, but I do believe that all of those charged with the offense were either charged at a municipal level or charged in counties that never stated they wouldn't charge for the offense.

Have you ever heard of Mr. Dremel?

Dremeling off the molded dates is not really going to be effective. Because if one was being charged with this offense, guess what would be admissable evidence that one did not possess the magazine before July 1, 2013? An attempt to remove the molded date.

I'd like to add: While grinding off the surface appearance of a stamped date makes it more difficult to see the date, stamping into plastic or metal causes a compression of the underlying material which can reveal the stamped information under forensic analysis. This takes time and effort and costs money, which for a violation of the mag cap law may be more cost & effort than they'd want to expend, but it can be done (and is done on firearms with ground off serial numbers).

Now, a manufacture date that is molded (not stamped) onto the device during manufacture probably wouldn't offer this same capability. BUT, if you ground off the date you'd be presenting a challenge to any entity who wanted to prove who's smarter. Then too, by removing the date you give the prosecution a nugget to present to the jury to make them question your motives. Is it worth the risk?

Prior to July 1, 2013 I stocked up on a ton of 15+ capacity mags for firearms I thought I might like to acquire some day. Most of these will probably never be used. While I fully disagree with the law, I won't put myself in a position of knowingly violating it. Personally, and as a representative of this site, I strongly advise everyone else to adopt that same mindset. And please remember that we don't allow discussion that advocates unlawful behavior.

[Gman]

Prior to July 1, 2013 I stocked up on a ton of 15+ capacity mags for firearms I thought I might like to acquire some day. Most of these will probably never be used. While I fully disagree with the law, I won't put myself in a position of knowingly violating it.

+1

I'll just add that I'm afflicted with having a conscience and want to be able to look myself in the eye when in front of a mirror.

[Eric P]

Can home rule cities exempt themselves from this nonsense law?

[10x]

Along those same thoughts, i wonder how many have been charged for not doing the background checks?

[kidicarus13]

Along those same thoughts, i wonder how many have been charged for not doing the background checks?

Unless some poor schmuck got caught up in a sting or had a stolen firearm in their possession, the answer is zero.

[Will1776]

Verify that if there is a mfg date on the mag, that it is on or before 7/1/13.

I know magpul has mfg dates on their magazines.

"The feed lips broke, replaced the body"

[FoxtArt]

Much fail.

#1) You don't attempt to prove squat. State "All magazines are legally owned pursuant to Colorado law" and refuse to answer any question further, no matter what the question is. Broad advice: The State has the burden of evidence, and the only way innocent people get into jail is they start answering questions. Thanks to hearsay exemptions, literally the only statement you make that can be used in court is anything that can be twisted to make you appear guilty. You're not permitted to counter with the context, or content that makes you appear innocent, as there's no hearsay exemptions for that. Direct tip: Don't even say where you bought them, or when, and I'm presuming they are legally possessed when saying that.

#2) Loopholes don't exist people. How DF do you people think the legal system works? You present a monopoly card that says "Get out of jail free" and the judge and jury is like "OOOOOH SHIT, DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING. OH WELL, RULE 42, GOTTA LET YOU GO DESPITE THE FACT WE NOW THINK YOU DID IT".

Fact: Our legal system is an unfair, biased mess that lets a judge support any decision he wants to make, and our system has the judge lead the jury around with a hook in their mouth - almost never does the jury render an decision the judge didn't ultimately desire and craft. Your argument of "law" or technicalities are about as effective as trying logical argument on an Antifa rioter. If they want you, THEY WILL GET YOU. If you do shady shit, THEY WILL ESPECIALLY GET YOU.

ETA: Oh and PS, you're not going to win on appeal either - judges are provided "discretion" by the appeals court, which is obligated to explain away even the most twisted of logic or reasoning by any explanation possible. Even if you did win, you're sentence would have be completed by then so they may terminate your appeal for being moot.

[TresMonos]

The CO law does not say that. Just that they were lawfully possessed prior to 7/1/13, nothing about them having to have been lawfully possessed within the borders of the state on that date.

18-12-302 (2):

(2) (a) A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she:
(I) Owns the large-capacity magazine on July 1, 2013; and
(II) Maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.
(b) If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.

So.....what if I possessed several Magpul D-60s or a few F5 Mfg 50 round 9mm colt drums prior to establishing residency?

Much fail.

#1) You don't attempt to prove squat. State "All magazines are legally owned pursuant to Colorado law" and refuse to answer any question further, no matter what the question is. Broad advice: The State has the burden of evidence, and the only way innocent people get into jail is they start answering questions. Thanks to hearsay exemptions, literally the only statement you make that can be used in court is anything that can be twisted to make you appear guilty. You're not permitted to counter with the context, or content that makes you appear innocent, as there's no hearsay exemptions for that. Direct tip: Don't even say where you bought them, or when, and I'm presuming they are legally possessed when saying that.

#2) Loopholes don't exist people. How DF do you people think the legal system works? You present a monopoly card that says "Get out of jail free" and the judge and jury is like "OOOOOH SHIT, DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING. OH WELL, RULE 42, GOTTA LET YOU GO DESPITE THE FACT WE NOW THINK YOU DID IT".

Fact: Our legal system is an unfair, biased mess that lets a judge support any decision he wants to make, and our system has the judge lead the jury around with a hook in their mouth - almost never does the jury render an decision the judge didn't ultimately desire and craft. Your argument of "law" or technicalities are about as effective as trying logical argument on an Antifa rioter. If they want you, THEY WILL GET YOU. If you do shady shit, THEY WILL ESPECIALLY GET YOU.

ETA: Oh and PS, you're not going to win on appeal either - judges are provided "discretion" by the appeals court, which is obligated to explain away even the most twisted of logic or reasoning by any explanation possible. Even if you did win, you're sentence would have be completed by then so they may terminate your appeal for being moot.

Thanks, this is helpful...

[Eric P]

don't do stupid and give them a reason to investigate you, and you can own what you want.

As long as the date stamp on the molding is prior to July 13, they cant prove you didn't possess them before July 13. No date stamp and model existed before july 13. Again they cant prove you didn't posess them prior to july 13, resident or not.