U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 17, 2013 04:53 PM UTC

BREAKING: Sky Will NOT Fall When Magazine Bill Takes Effect

  • 35 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Late this afternoon, the office of Colorado Attorney General John Suthers released a long-awaited technical guidance letter prepared for the Department of Public Safety on the implementation of House Bill 1224, the magazine limit bill. This technical guidance was requested by Gov. John Hickenlooper at the signing of HB-1224 into law, following the many objections raised by opponents of the legislation that the bill would "ban all magazines," or at least all magazines "with a removable baseplate" or other design feature that could hypothetically allow them to be expanded beyond the legal maximum of 15 rounds.

As we have reassured our readers over and over, but unfortunately local media has failed to clarify for an anxious and misinformed public–even helping spread baseless speculation–that is not going to happen.

Definition of "Large Capacity Magazine"

Under House Bill 1224, the term "large capacity magazine" is defined, in part, as follows: "a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting, or that is designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds of ammunition."

The phrase "designed to be readily converted to accept more than fifteen rounds of ammunition" has prompted questions regarding the scope of the definition, particularly because some ammunition magazines include features, such as removable baseplates, that can be removed and replaced, or otherwise altered, so that the magazine accepts more than fifteen rounds.

The term "designed," when used as a modifier, denotes a feature that meets a specific function. This suggests that design features that fulfill more than one function, and whose function is not specifically to increase the capacity of a magazine, do not fall under the definition. The features of a magazine must be judged objectively to determine whether they were "designed to be readily converted to accept more than fifteen rounds."

Under this reading of the definition, a magazine that accepts fifteen or fewer rounds is not a "large capacity magazine" simply because it includes a removable baseplate which may be replaced with one that allows the magazine to accept additional rounds. [Pols emphasis] On many magazines, that design feature is included specifically to permit cleaning and maintenance. Of course, a magazine whose baseplate is replaced with one that does, in fact, allow the magazine to accept more than fifteen rounds would be a "large capacity magazine" under House Bill 1224.

Here's the full text of the memo, which also explains the meaning of the "continuous possession" language in the bill–and again, the plain interpretation of the bill does not lead to the wild unforeseen consequences Republican opponents insisted would be the result. With both of these provisions but particularly the language on whether magazines were "designed to be readily converted," it is obvious now that opponents like Jon Caldara of the Independence Institute were not telling the truth when they claimed that House Bill 1224 would mean "almost all guns in Colorado will never be able to get a magazine again." It means that every reporter who uncritically reprinted this lie now needs to write another story explaining how that wasn't true.

And folks, we're not going to forget this. The amount of misinformation spread about this legislation by opponents, and too often subsidized by reporters dismayingly willing to trade long-term credibility for short-term scoops, was totally unacceptable and needs to be called out. A lowly political blog should not be the only media source telling the public the truth about this bill, but that really does seem to be what happened in this case.

The people of Colorado deserved better. And we hope they finally get it now.

Tweet
Share

Comments

35 thoughts on “BREAKING: Sky Will NOT Fall When Magazine Bill Takes Effect”

      1. one of the scaredy cats just overpaid for a gun I was selling on consignment. Paid 20% more than the price of a NIB because he thinks an AK-47 is really cool

        1. I hope Mr. "More Money Than Brains" exercises better judgement when handling that AK-47.  I'm sure you heard about this accidental shooting death this week in Denver (from HuffPo): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/17/anastasia-adair-dead-dies-assault-rifle_n_3293336.html

          A Denver-area woman died Tuesday night after an assault rifle she was handling accidentally fired and shot her in the head.

          Witnesses told ABC Denver affiliate KMGH that Anastasia Adair, 22, was passing an AK-47-style assault rifle to her husband, Dana "Shane" Adair, when the gun went off. A second shot was fired when Anastasia fell and dropped the rifle, but no one was hit by it, two witnesses and the husband told police.

          According to the article, they were drinkin' beer and showing off to friends their 2 month old prized purchase.  Naturally, it had a 30 round clip, but I guess they didn't know how to use the safety.

  2. Holy shit, that's one hell of a Friday news dump! I'm sure Suthers hated doing this to his fellow GOPers.

    And yeah, a lotta reporters who need to start doing their FUCKING JOBS instead of stenographing Jon Caldara's bullshit. It's not enough to report about this memo, which I wonder if they'll even do. The people of Colorado deserve to know a terrible injustice has been done. They've been lied to.

    1.  

      This is about the Second Amendment,

      horse pucky…this is no more about the Second Amendment than it is about my grandmas' fancy underpants. This is about profits for gun manufacturers and paranoid psychotics…plain and simple.

      1. Is that what you have to say to the wheelchair-bound plaintiff who wants to have an equal chance to defend himself?

        All I'm saying is this is more than just baseplates on magazines. There are fundamental Second Amendment issues at stake.

        1. What about the law(s) will prevent the wheelchair-bound plaintiff from defending himself? Can he not pass a background check? Is he unable to handle a weapon unless the magazine holds more than a 15 rounds?

        3. Well, Moderatus. I am a brain-dead liberal who has a hard time understanding such constitutional nuance. Please state your issues once more…slowly, clearly, and in simple terms. Explain to me how not having a thirty round capacity magazine prevents me, or any other human being, from killing you with a Colt 45. 

          Is it that only the number of rounds at your diposal is relevant?

          Hmmmmm?

    2. And the courts, not Sheriffs, get to decide whether or not laws are constitutional and therefore whether or not they violate our rights.  Since the courts, all the way up to and including the Supremes, have long recognized various regulations in connection with firearms,  second amendment  rights being no more or less absolute than other constitutional rights, all of which are subject to limits ( see yelling fire in a crowded theater etc.) it's highly unlikely that the new Colorado laws will be found unconstitutional.

      Unless and until the laws are declared unconstitutional by our judicial branch, the only entity empowered to make that decision, the Sheriff's' arguments for non-enforcement, absent any court ordered stay until the matter is resolved,  would appear to put them on pretty shaky ground in terms of refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the laws and act accordingly in the course of their duties.

  6. Does anyone know why this memo was released AFTER the Kopel suit had been filed?  Would it have made any difference in the suit if the memo could have been cited?

     

    i welcome the constitutional test.  It is exactly how propaganda and false fears should be addressed

    1. Would it have made in difference in the suit?

      You're joking, right? The only thing that would stop this suit is if Caldara can't raise any more money off it. And that's not happening.

      2. No, I am not joking.  I didn't make myself clear.  I didn't think that the lawsuit would not have been filed. But, one of the points in the suit was that the provisions on magazines was vague.  The Memo clarified those provisions.  So if Kopel had had that information prior to filing, he would have had the opportunity to read it and critique it and included that information in the suit.  I think the timing of the memo release gives the state an advantage in defending the law.  So, why didn't Suthers release the memo earlier?   I am just asking questions that occur from the timeline,

        I don't have answers.

         

        1. Our sheriff told us on Tues at central committee that the suit was to be filed on this coming Monday. He has been wrong about so, so much. But, if that was the intent it is possible Kopel jumped early to take the steam out of the AG's memo

  7. BTW One of the sherrif talking points, re why they oppose these laws and Police Chiefs largely favor the is that Sherrif is elected and therefore independent while Chiefs are only allowed to say what their City Council's allow. At least thats what my dumbass Sherrif says

    1. Even if that's true,  aren't the City Councils elected?  So what he's saying is that he has to represent the people who elected him while Chiefs have to represent the people's will as expressed through their legitimately elected representatives on the City Council..

      Isn't it ironic that the representaive form of government Republicans seem to hate so much is the form from which they take their name…  a republic?

  9. The technically guidance is all fine and dandy, however it does start out with "Although this guidance is not binding in court…". Meaning the Attorney General can say what he wants but any cop can still arrest you for violating the provisions he "clarified". The courts will ultimately decide how to interpret these poorly written laws.

    1. Wrong, you paranoid dumbfuck. Suthers, a Republican, is restating the clear language as best he can so you paranoid dumbfucks will take a pill and stop imagining that Hillary Clinton will be at your door with stormtroopers on July 1.

      But because you are a paranoid dumbfuck, nothing will convince you anyway, so I don't see why he bothered. Oh yeah, IT'S HIS JOB.

      I'm so tired of this shit.

    1. The guidance was needed because certain uninformed (or dishonest) NRA stooges were screeching about how "every weapon could be considered illegal" and other horse hockey.

      The law wasn't poorly written. You and your cronies were just too stupid to understand it, or too dishonest to admit you did.

    2. Uhhh, because he's the state's Attorney General?  I am pretty sure that is one things Attorneys General do.  Its in the job description. 

      Kind of like…

      What is Guppy here posting stupid comments and questions? 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

79 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!