When Governor John Hickenlooper signed the controversial ban on magazines holding over 15 rounds into law back in March the state’s political historian, Lynn Bartels, noted he did something that she couldn’t remember ever seeing before — he added a signing statement to clarify sloppily written legislation:
Can’t remember another bill signed into law that needed a disclaimer on here’s how it is supposed to work. #magban #coleg
— Lynn Bartels (@lynn_bartels) March 21, 2013
That sloppy effort at writing legislation led to a legislative white-out last week when plaintiffs suing the state over the mag ban reached a back room agreement on how certain phrases in the legislation would be interpreted.
Reported The Colorado Observer‘s Valerie Richardson last week:
DENVER—Colorado gun owners may now hand ammunition magazines to their friends and family without fear of arrest, thanks to a last-minute agreement reached Wednesday.
The parties in the lawsuit over the state legislature’s newly enacted gun-control laws agreed to a settlement Wednesday that clarifies two sections of the House Bill 1224, which bans magazines holding more than 15 rounds…
The guidance addresses two sections of the H.B. 1224, the first being the ban on magazines that are “designed to be readily convertible” to hold more than 15 rounds. Critics had argued that the ban would cover virtually any magazine, given that most have removable base plates.
Under the newly approved guidance, magazines with removable base plates are not prohibited unless they are permanently altered.
“These baseplates themselves do not enable the magazines to be expanded, and they serve functions aside from the expansion—notable, they allow the magazines to be cleaned and repaired,” says the guidance. “To actually convert them to higher capacity, one must purchase additional equipment or permanently alter their operation mechanically.”
The second section centers on the law’s requirement that magazine owners maintain “continuous possession” of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. Such magazines are now banned from being sold or purchased in Colorado, but those who bought them before the law took effect July 1 may keep them.
Gun-rights advocates have described the law as impossible to enforce, and have made their point by staging protest events in which they hand magazines to each other in defiance of the law.
The guidance gives a different spin to the phrase “continuous possession.”
“’Continuous possession’ does not require a large-capacity magazine owner to maintain literally continuous physical possession of the magazine,” says the guidance. “’Continuous possession’ is only lost by a voluntary relinquishment of dominion and control.”
Gun control proponents, laughably, tried to claim victory on this, saying it meant the law was good after all. If it was so great, then why did it take a back room negotiation, between unelected parties, to get it right?
Not only did this have to happen behind closed doors, itself a sad sign of the sloppy work done in the legislature, but it had to have a court enforce the legislative white-out. As a legal source noted to us, the court issued a preliminary injunction binding the governor to this corrected language.
Maybe the legislature could benefit from a remedial course in how to write laws before next session begins?
For more information on what the court’s injunction means for gun owners, see the video update from the Independence Institute’s Jon Caldara below:
First of all any addition by the governor upon signing makes the legislation null and void, HE ALTERED OR EDITED THE LEGISLATION, that is an unconstitutional act in and of itself. Why has no one challenged this in any court? Seriously, if this were lawful, he could alter any legislation that appears pn his desk to fit what he sees as the LAW. The state Constitution does not give him authority to alter legislation when signing into law PERIOD!
Unfortunately, this 'legislative white-out' has just made magazines that WERE legally modified prior to the law going into effect, illegal if they now hold more than 15 rounds. They are not grandfathered in.
Bloomberg knows what's good for the rest of us.
Poorly written, unenforceable as written, and written without consulting people who know what the terms used mean.Arrogance. This is exactly the reason I opposed these new laws and why I support recall of Giron. Fields even admitted in a television interview she had no idea about magazine construction. From my district, Giron and Hickenlooper were both told the flaws in the bills but ignored the information and chose to make them law.
The flaws in the the ammunition law are covered in this article. But the background check law is also stupid and does nothing to target the problem – indeed actually ignores the problem.
For example, the background check law makes a criminal of the seller if they transfer a gun when a buyer fails the background check. But, in the new laws, nothing happens about the buyer if they try to buy a gun and fail the background check. If the legislators were serious about addressing the real problem – criminals and the mentally ill – the background check law could have been made more effective by simply adding in a requirement for action against people who were trying to buy a gun but failed the background check. It is a logical 'next step' and there is no reason it should not be included.
There is no requirement for referral to or action by law enforcement if a person legally prohibited from possessing a gun tries to buy one. Why in the world would anyone support a law that carries no provision for arresting a criminal actively trying to buy a gun? There is no referral to social services if a person fails for mental health reasons – they are trying to buy a gun – which is supposedly the thing we are worried about – but the law completely ignores the 'red flag' warning. Why would anyone support a law that does not seek to help (or stop) a person who has been flagged as dangerous if they own a gun – who is actively trying to buy a gun? If you think this legislation is good, think about that when you see the media report one day that someone who committed a murder with a gun had failed a background check – and nothing was done about it at the time. A warning was available, but no one acted on it because this legislation didn't require it. Instead, the laws simply make criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens. There is an opportunity to implement helpful legislation, but instead the law just does 'something.' It makes criminals of honest citizens and ignores the criminals and mentally ill.
Dangerous. Unproductive. Stupid.
Wouldn't the time our legislators spent on these ineffective laws have been better spent increasing penalties and enforcement on people actually using a gun in a crime? Look at any recent news report on people using guns to commit crimes. If they didn't actually kill anyone, they are back on the street within days.
details…details… they only apply to those that govern by the rule of law… not to those that go with their 'emotions'…