Friday, January 31, 2014

If A Gun Is Exchanged In A Forest...

...and there's no liberal nearby to be affronted, is a crime committed?

Apparently not according to police stats which note that right next to nobody has been arrested for selling a gun to another citizen  in a private sale without a background check. The absence of cops at the scene of the transfer, or even a liberal to call one is probably a significant factor in the lack of arrests.

The other law that has netted no arrests is the magazine capacity law which says that you must either buy standard capacity magazines at gun stores in outlying states, or get them from the same fellow who sold you the gun. And we all know that no one in the scrupulously law-abiding state of Colorado would drive to Wyoming to buy anything not permitted here. Like fireworks.

Bottom line, neither law will work without 100% registration and would also require someone at every gun range in the state, formal or informal, to run numbers on registered guns and magazines.

The next recall election is November 4th.


Anonymous said...

The laws have been in effect for only 1/2 year. Give it time.

Most AR-15 magazines have date-of-manufacturer on them. If caught with banned-magazines made after July 2013, proof-of-guilt will be beyond reasonable doubt.

While you could sell or trade guns you bought before July 2013, transfers after July 2013 are required to go through a licensed gun dealer, so a record will exist some where. Especially for guns made after July 2013. Again, establishing proof-of-guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will be trivial.

And keep in mind that this was done after 2/3 of licensed gun dealers were regulated out of business in the 1990s.

There's also the issue of seized property. If you are suspected of possessing illegal guns and/or magazines, but are never charged or convicted, there is no guarantee that your property will be returned to you.

The laws may not affect you and me that much, but they will affect the next generation. This is a long-term war against the gun culture, something that our side seems to know but at the same time fails to see.

Anonymous said...

Also, the U.S. Army considers magazines to be Class IX supply items , "Repair parts and components to include kits, assemblies, and subassemblies (repairable or non-repairable) required for maintenance support of all equipment." In the case of magazines, the military considers them "consumable" or "disposable" items.

I'm surprised -- and disappointed -- that this was not mentioned in the lawsuit against the state.

As existing magazines wear out, owners will not be able to replace them. Therefore, a ban on the sale and transfer is a ban on future possession, or what Governor Bloomberglicker called "a modest restriction."