• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The problem with being "Grandfathered" after an assault weapons ban.

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
Has anyone seen a "Grandfather" clause in this bill??


Go to the Colorado Legislature website and looke up HOUSE BILL 13-1224.

It reads, in part,

"The bill prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of an ammunition feeding device that is capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition or more than 5 shotgun shells (large-capacity magazine). A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she owns the large-capacity magazine on the effective date of the bill and maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.

A person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine in violation of the new provision commits a class 2 misdemeanor."
 

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
The officer doesn't have evidence that your equipment is NOT grandfathered, thus his siezure is an assumption of guilt, similar to an assumption of guilt when he hassles you simply for carrying a weapon openly (which is illegal without RAS).

Unless the law states you must provide proof (snip), the assumption is its legal unless they can prove otherwise. Regardless in court they have to prove you obtained it after the ban.

Right.

Their law does state that "THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO REFUTE THE ASSERTION."

HOUSE BILL 13-1224 reads, in part,

"(2) (a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF HE OR SHE:
(I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION; 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."

They would have to catch you actually transferring a mag, or buying one via mail order, etc. So beware of sting ops.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
I was living in the San Antonio, Texas area back in 1993-94 when the Constitutional Militia movement fired up after the ATF's WACO fiasco.

We had a couple hundred attend a Bexar County militia muster that soon spawned county musters throughout the State.

The anti-constitutionalists will try to marginalize militia assemblies, but consider the source - what else can we expect.

I think it is self evident that these transgressors NEED to be aware of the mustering of local militias because it delivers a needed message.

Militia musters are pretty much "show" - and perhaps that is as it should be. Without the "show" - how do our "betters" know that we the people may actually constitute something more than mere worker bees and huddled masses ?
 

GvdM

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
43
Location
Colorado Springs
Face it. We are all destined to become criminals now. I will not comply with these unconstitutional laws. We keep drawing lines which get crossed and what do we do? Draw another line. I am done. Will not renew my permit as this gives another avenue to monitor me. I am done. This may be my ultimate demise but I will no longer compromise.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk
 

GvdM

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
43
Location
Colorado Springs
Scotsman, you're right, Terry is a good man and we need more like him. It is not Terry I am worried about :)

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
Face it. We are all destined to become criminals now. I will not comply with these unconstitutional laws. We keep drawing lines which get crossed and what do we do? Draw another line. I am done. Will not renew my permit as this gives another avenue to monitor me. I am done. This may be my ultimate demise but I will no longer compromise.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

Thats foolish. While we don't have constitutional carry, we do have open carry as a right. Your CCW permit covers you from being harassed because 1/4" sq of you jacket falls across the grip of your gun. Your permit only tells them that you are valid for CCW - it doesn't tell them what you own.

Quite frankly in the few traffic stops I've been in due to Pb Pedia, having the CCW and conducting myself in a resepctful and proffesional manner has resulted in being let go with a warning more often than not. Most patrol officers are in favor of CCW etc, and when they make a traffic stop they know that you've passed background checks etc that other random motorists haven't. This puts them more at ease and is generally going ot help you.

As for the magazine ban, its a rubbish law and the other states that have done so only have higher crime to show for it.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
The vast majority of people, even posters here, would do nothing if laws are passed but abide by them...baa baa baa .. sheep who have never fought for freedom

Not everyone here is a sheep. Some of us have fought for freedom. Revolutions are started by a few, then joined by others who are brought to the cause. Even theretofore sheep. Don't dismiss the zeal for liberty so quickly.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Right.

Their law does state that "THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO REFUTE THE ASSERTION."

HOUSE BILL 13-1224 reads, in part,

"(2) (a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF HE OR SHE:
(I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION; 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."

They would have to catch you actually transferring a mag, or buying one via mail order, etc. So beware of sting ops.
This is NOT an affirmative defense. The 'total' burden is on the state to prove you do not have "Pre-ban" equipment. It is in reality virtually impossible to do unless you are caught in a sting. The same rules of lawful search apply--no PC, no warrant. If you drive to KS and buy 45 100 round drums for your Glock, have them in the back of your car and are stopped for speeding, the mere existence of the magazines is not PC for any action. They can't 'guess' you just bought them and cite you or ask you for proof of previous possession. If they do, the charge would be immediately dismissed for lack of evidence, sua sponte. You don't have to say a word.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
At least in El Paso County you have a good sheriff who refuses to submit his list of CCW holders to the state database. I know (a little) Terry Maketa and he's a good man.

The Sheriff and the DA may well simply refuse to charge and or prosecute under this law in El Paso County. Dan May is also a good man. Keep in mind, the CO Attorney General is a pro-gun Republican, as well. Just because the democrap vermin passes it doesn't mean it will be enforced outside of the communist block of denver, boulder, aurora, etc.
 

Anubis

Newbie
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
451
Location
Arapahoe County CO, ,
If they seized your stuff, you'd be inconvenienced, but you'd have a good case to suit for civil rights violations.

If your firearms are seized, that's skipping to the final step in the campaign to confiscate. It's over; you will never see them again. Look what happened after Katrina when firearms were seized in Louisiana with a supposedly pro-gun governor. Plaintiffs eventually won in court, but most of the seized firearms were never returned.
 

rootbrain

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
5
Location
colorado
I don't know if this will work, but I've been focusing my attention on Governor Hickenlooper urging him not to sign these 2A restricting bills UNLESS THERE IS AN EXCEPTION PROVIDED FOR CHP HOLDERS. This approach would at least provide the Governor with some cover since the restrictions would then pass constitutional scrutiny for not being overly onerous.

I can hear the chuckling as to WHY we would even want to entertain the thought of advising this Governor to protect his political 6.

My reasoning stems from the present reality that Democrats appear to have an edge at Colorado polls- at least for now. Given the possibility that Hickenlooper has a good chance for re-election anyway due to the mass shooting hysteria present in the state of mind of the sheep this may be the only path available to mitigate the damage coming out of the General Assembly right now. The CHP exception presents a "common sense reasonable" approach to satisfying concerns regarding background checks, and HI-cap magazines. CHP holders undergo a higher level of scrutiny than a NIC's background check anyway.

If Coloradoans inundate Governor Hickenlooper with such a recommendation he may just opt to buy into it- to better ensure his chances for reelection if for no better reason.

I don't particularly LIKE this approach - but it may be better than settling for an across the board application of these infringements.

NO - the campus carry law should ABSOLUTELY NOT BE REPEALED>

The problem is Hickenlooper doesn't have to sign for it to become law. If he doesn't veto it's law.

Rootbrain
 
Top