Facts? Interpretations and "presumption" possibly, but in most states the Game and Fish/DNR isn't the department charged with deciding how laws will be enforced. Find the statement "...this is not legal advice, but rather a summary of facts related to HB 1224 as we understand them..." Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?

Let's just say that things are sufficiently "gray" that nonresidents SHOULD have some concerns over how these laws will be interpreted and enforced in Colorado. Heck, residents should have concerns too. CDOW is wise to get in on the front end. However, given the rancor about certain elected LEOs in Colorado and their attitudes toward (non) enforcement, if the AG takes a hard line, CDOW will no doubt be forced to follow as a state agency, regardless of how they may view the laws as individuals or any "presumption" they may have had at one time.

I trust that you're writing Governor Hickenlooper to confirm CDOW's assessment? That you've asked him to provide guidance to the AG supporting CDOW's "presumption"? That you're writing the AG? That you're writing your Representative? You have an awful lot at stake here.

Of course, James Holmes wouldn't have shown up on a background check, he didn't borrow any guns, and law enforcement really had no cause to investigate him otherwise to find that he had a "high-capacity magazine" - so Aurora would have proceeded even without these new restrictions. But that's a topic for another section of the forum.