View Full Version : HB 13-1224: CO Magazine Capacity Limit (15-Round) Bill Thread
http://www.ar-15.co/forums/90-Legislation-amp-Politics
Nope but the bill to limit standard capacity mags has moved forward. Ugh.
I escaped NY thinking Co was free, Christ am I really going to have to move to Tx to be free. I don't even much like Tx
Texas is only about 10 years behind CO voting 43% for Obummer.
Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska and Oklahoma are the only places I would consider.
I am reprsented by 4 legislators, one from CO, the others from the upper Northest, one born in NY! They see somehting good and they just have to bring the crime, drugs and poverty to it.
Wyoming is looking better all the time.
d_striker
02-16-2013, 01:53
WTF is up with a voice vote for the second reading??? All of the Dems supporting this bill are not held liable as their vote is not officially recorded. Why the hell didn't the R's organize a 1/5 request for a roll call vote????
ETA-I just read this article which states that Republicans can still force a roll call vote.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22598247/colorado-house-opens-debate-ban-high-capacity-ammo
There will be a roll call vote on 3rd reading, and they will be posted on the legislative site in the bill folders. Colorado uses the old Committee of the Whole process; it is kind of screwy.
d_striker
02-16-2013, 02:15
There will be a roll call vote on 3rd reading, and they will be posted on the legislative site in the bill folders. Colorado uses the old Committee of the Whole process; it is kind of screwy.
Isn't the 3rd reading performed by the Senate though? It just seems like there was never an opportunity to kill this bill even if it did have the votes at this stage in the legislative process.
The judgement for whether the yea's or nay's take it rests squarely on one individual who could very well be biased.
d_striker
02-16-2013, 02:21
Nevermind...I found this:
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1224913761903&ssbinary=true
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc138/dominomofo/COBillProcesscopy_zps85e58f22.jpg
Isn't the 3rd reading performed by the Senate though? It just seems like there was never an opportunity to kill this bill even if it did have the votes at this stage in the legislative process.
The judgement for whether the yea's or nay's take it rests squarely on one individual who could very well be biased.
I think it's monday that they actually have to vote yay or nay and have it recorded.
USAFGopherMike
02-16-2013, 06:05
Wyoming is looking better all the time.
If you're going to move to WY, stay in the Western half of the state.
Madeinhb
02-16-2013, 11:40
I escaped NY thinking Co was free, Christ am I really going to have to move to Tx to be free. I don't even much like Tx
I left California for the same reasons.
Has anyone read the SCOTUS ruling on common use weapons for common defense? Instead of trying to sway them with facts about how stupid their law is and how it didn't work in the past. Why not just point out that it is unconstitutional and goes against their latest ruling on the subject of guns and the 2nd amendment.
OneGuy67
02-16-2013, 17:45
I'm reading one of my LE magazines I get and it has a editorial about the NY gun ban and its effect on some parties the legislatures didn't expect to think about in their haste to get their laws on the books. I re-read our proposed legislation and we have similar issues (bear in mind that I think the whole thing is an issue).
1). While the proposed legislation exempts employees of the federal government and state and local employees, it does not exempt retired employees. So if you have an officer who is retiring and wants to sell his duty AR, he has to sell it prior to retiring if he wants to sell the magazines with it and only to another officer or exempt employee.
2). It does not exempt private security or contract security who may not work directly for the govt, but are contracted to secure sites in Colorado through their employers contract with the govt. The Pueblo Army Depot comes to mind as they have contract security working there, fully armed. There may be others, like at power stations, nuclear sites, chemical plants, oil refineries and other pieces of infrastructure. There may be others that I am not aware of off the top of my head.
3). How about those who are allowed to carry concealed due to reciprosity with their own state and who are not residents of this state? Retired officers carrying under H.B. 218? There are a number of handguns which use magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.
Just some of the thoughts from the editorial. Food for thought and for any additional correspondence to the legislators if you are so inclined.
Has anyone read the SCOTUS ruling on common use weapons for common defense? Instead of trying to sway them with facts about how stupid their law is and how it didn't work in the past. Why not just point out that it is unconstitutional and goes against their latest ruling on the subject of guns and the 2nd amendment.
Yes.. and there is no possible way that the 15 round limit (for rifles) can pass constitutional muster.
However, the legislator's lawyers have either A) told them that yes it will pass constitutional muster or B) told them it would not and they decided to push it anyway knowing that the Colorado courts are heavily left leaning and anti-gun.
It will take years to get through the courts.. Heller took ~10 years..
Yes.. and there is no possible way that the 15 round limit (for rifles) can pass constitutional muster.
However, the legislator's lawyers have either A) told them that yes it will pass constitutional muster or B) told them it would not and they decided to push it anyway knowing that the Colorado courts are heavily left leaning and anti-gun.
It will take years to get through the courts.. Heller took ~10 years..
We'll vote the dems back out of majority long before then. They keep destroying everythign we hold dear and there will be too many independents and fence sitters moving right to stop it.
Great-Kazoo
02-16-2013, 18:21
We'll vote the dems back out of majority long before then. They keep destroying everythign we hold dear and there will be too many independents and fence sitters moving right to stop it.
In office or not it will fall to the SC to render a final decision. With O able to appoint 1 possibly 2 SC judges, i would not hold my breath of anything being over turned. EXCEPT for Heller v DC
Many of the firearms we have, manufacturers don't make 15 or lower round capacity magazines for them.I have a 40 cal handgun that comes STANDARD with 16 rounds. It is the Springfield Armory XDM 3.8 in .40 seen here (http://www.the-m-factor.com/html/specs_4.html (http://www.the-m-factor.com/html/specs_4.html))If the magazine I have breaks or gets stolen, it will render that gun useless because I won't be able to purchase more magazines for it if HB 1224 passes.My wife and I each own a 9mm that comes ***STANDARD*** with 19 round magazines and they don't make magazines with a lower capacity for them. It is the Springfield Armory XDM 5.25 9mm seen here (http://www.the-m-factor.com/html/specs_9.html (http://www.the-m-factor.com/html/specs_9.html)). If our magazines break or get stolen, those firearms are rendered completely useless if HB 1224 passes!That is NOT fair!We purchased those firearms legally and we are upstanding, life-loving, law-abiding citizens!Why should we be punished and have our firearms potentially rendered useless by this bill? People were saying, during the debate, that 15 round magazines are "standard". THESE people obviously don't own firearms or maybe they just don't know what they are talking about. There are MANY MANY popular handguns sold today that have STANDARD capacity magazines in the 16-19 round range and they don't make lower capacity magazines for those firearms. This bill, if it becomes a law, will go beyond legislating out many standard capacity magazines... it will go so far as to legislate out many standard handguns that people own. It will eventually render our firearms to nothing more than paperweights if the magazines were to break, get lost or stolen! I don't know about you, but throwing my firearm at an intruder is not an option in a life or death situation!
Is there any recourse here? We have thousands invested in firearms that will become useless if the magazines wear out or break. Any lawyers out there? Is a suit possible if this bill passes?
osok-308
02-16-2013, 20:15
I actually wrote my legislators stating that exact argument. I hope that it's one that actually gets read.
It will eventually render our firearms to nothing more than paperweights if the magazines were to break
That is their intent. Expect the supply of small parts like firing pins, extractors, and springs to dry up and go out of circulation. The next step is outlawing powder for reloading and registering all ammunition purchases.
EvilRhino
02-16-2013, 21:21
I'm still planning on shooting a short video to send to them, as well as hopefully spread before the later votes showing me trying to load a 15 round G19 mag into a G17. I know Salazar probably won't ever see or hear of it, but he's the one who decided "everyone" was "comfortable with 15 rounds". These reps should excuse themselves from issues that they clearly have no experience or knowledge in. He simply latched onto what Mr. ATF guy said about his 15 rounds, likely a .40 and the Douglas county guy who defended against the gang with his spare 15 rounders, likely a Glock 19 or equivalent. Salazar took that as gospel. He has no concept of "standard" magazine size, nor the differences in calibers vs. capacity.
Doubledamage
02-17-2013, 01:43
As did I, and obtained my CCW within a month of doing so. Now that Colorado is going the same direction as far as 2A restrictions we can expect the same high levels of safety and lack of gun violence as say Los Angeles, Oakland, or Santa Ana.
They probably just expect you to buy 10 rounders. Regardless, if your magazine does break you can buy repair kits or go to Wyoming and just buy a new mag. This law is unenforceable. Plus I'm more worried that every gun sold in Colorado will become California compliant since manufacturers aren't going to tool another line to produce 15 round mags, they'll just provide ten round mags.
I think the 15 round limit had more to do with AR magazines than anything else. The knew no one made a 15 round mag (at least that I know of) so you are almost forced to the 10 round mag if you can find them. The increase from 10 to 15 was nothing more than them trying to appear that they were listening to the pro 2a side. That was planned from the very start I believe.
BPTactical
02-17-2013, 08:56
I think the 15 round limit had more to do with AR magazines than anything else. The knew no one made a 15 round mag (at least that I know of) so you are almost forced to the 10 round mag if you can find them. The increase from 10 to 15 was nothing more than them trying to appear that they were listening to the pro 2a side. That was planned from the very start I believe.
It is ALL ammunition feeding devices.
I've been told there are multiple lawsuits in the works should these bills pass... so I guess that answers my question. I believe they are holding off on announcing... to see what happens on the Senate Floor and Hick's desk. But it is good to know that they are already readying for the fight if it gets that for.
Jesus-With-A-.45
02-17-2013, 09:48
Lawsuits aren't going anywhere, the law will stick & it will only get worse from here forward in CO. This has nothing to do with protecting the people, or even liberals being "Antigun" it's part of a larger plan to help the democraps retain power in CO longterm.
They know that most Pro-gun/2A supporters are Conservative, they also know that many of us will leave CO so we don't have to live under the yolk of their tyrany & lies. That's the real plan, drive out the defense & make it so the state can never return to the red.
It's always about power & nothing else.
Does anyone know if this bill makes it a crime to give your gun to a friend to shoot at the range? As I understand it, if I let my friend shoot my ar with a 30 round magazine, I've just transferred a "high capacity" magazine and committed a class 2 misdemeanor. On one trip to the range I could be committing dozens of crimes.
Does anyone know if this bill makes it a crime to give your gun to a friend to shoot at the range? As I understand it, if I let my friend shoot my ar with a 30 round magazine, I've just transferred a "high capacity" magazine and committed a class 2 misdemeanor. On one trip to the range I could be committing dozens of crimes.
Supposedly there are provisions (I do recall them discussing it) to allow for temporary transfers such as what you're describing but just plan to get jammed up if you do so. This is a HORRIBLY drafted bill that looks like a Jr High student scribbled down some notes in 15min so don't think you're covered doing ANYTHING moving forward if this passes. These are the draconian bills that neuter our rights that we all feared and expected. Get out while the gettin' is good!
It is ALL ammunition feeding devices.
I understand that the law affects all magazines but I think the drive behind the law and even more so the subsequent bump from 10 to 15 rounds was more AR related. Just my opinion.
I am still curious how my belt feds fall into all of this..
Guess I should belt up 500 round belts before this passes/July 1st.
Fried Chicken Blowout
02-17-2013, 11:49
Supposedly there are provisions (I do recall them discussing it) to allow for temporary transfers such as what you're describing but just plan to get jammed up if you do so.
I see no such provisions. You can read it for yourself and quote those provisions if you can. This appears that ANY possession is illegal if you did not OWN the mag prior to the ban. That's pretty much what it says and there is no other statement I can find. If someone is holding a 30 round mag of mine they are in possession of it. So the way I read it, if my hands are full and I ask my wife to hold my 30 round mags while I carry stuff into the house, then we both committed a Class 2 misdemeanor. I get my misdemeanor for completing the transfer and she gets hers for the possession. And yes this bill is a mess the way it's written. Plus I can't find the actual copy of the amendments that were written into it during it's time in committee or when it was dealt with on Friday on the House floor. Those amendments don't appear to be on the web at this point unless my Google skills are just failing me.
That being said, I think the only enforcement you'll see done with this law is in the City/County of Denver and if you commit a crime with one of these "dangerous" items in your possession at the time. Otherwise there is pretty much no way to enforce the law unless your mag is clearly marked as being made after the ban. Other than that or getting caught in a sting transferring the mags there's no way to prove anything. With that in mind I have already contacted my NFA Trust lawyer to find out more information and will be meeting with him once we have a confirmation of what the bill will look like once completed. I would suggest you all do the same before you assume anything. If we were so lucky, we'd find a member that's a lawyer that would post all of the in and out and loop holes that will be present in the bill so we know it better than the people that wrote it.
Here's the initial bill.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_01.pdf
I see no such provisions. You can read it for yourself and quote those provisions if you can. This appears that ANY possession is illegal if you did not OWN the mag prior to the ban. That's pretty much what it says and there is no other statement I can find. If someone is holding a 30 round mag of mine they are in possession of it. So the way I read it, if my hands are full and I ask my wife to hold my 30 round mags while I carry stuff into the house, then we both committed a Class 2 misdemeanor. I get my misdemeanor for completing the transfer and she gets hers for the possession. And yes this bill is a mess the way it's written. Plus I can't find the actual copy of the amendments that were written into it during it's time in committee or when it was dealt with on Friday on the House floor. Those amendments don't appear to be on the web at this point unless my Google skills are just failing me.
That being said, I think the only enforcement you'll see done with this law is in the City/County of Denver and if you commit a crime with one of these "dangerous" items in your possession at the time. Otherwise there is pretty much no way to enforce the law unless your mag is clearly marked as being made after the ban. Other than that or getting caught in a sting transferring the mags there's no way to prove anything. With that in mind I have already contacted my NFA Trust lawyer to find out more information and will be meeting with him once we have a confirmation of what the bill will look like once completed. I would suggest you all do the same before you assume anything. If we were so lucky, we'd find a member that's a lawyer that would post all of the in and out and loop holes that will be present in the bill so we know it better than the people that wrote it.
Here's the initial bill.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_01.pdf
He's talking about & I'm replying to the subject of the universal background check bill & how it affects loaning someone a firearm.
Edit: I see now that I misunderstood the question. There is NO temporary transfer since there is no transfer of high capacity magazines.
Fried Chicken Blowout
02-17-2013, 12:07
We were both fuzzy on the question and answer. But now we're all clear. Yes there was some caveat in the mandatory transfers for family members but that would still not allow mags to be transferred.
Fried Chicken Blowout
02-17-2013, 12:11
Additionally, the big issue I see is that if I'm teaching a carbine class and a student wants to check out my AR's optic or some accessory and I hand it to them hot with a 30 round mag, we're both in violation of the law. I'd have to remove the mag and pass it off for them to load another mag. The issue with that is, if I allow someone to shoot my guns in a class to "play" with my setup, I have them shoot my ammo so I know any issues that occur are my fault and not their ammo inducing the problem. Same thing goes at a 3-Gun match. If someone's gun goes tits up and I loan them mine, I have them shoot my ammo for safety sake. The whole think is totally knob headed!
Additionally, the big issue I see is that if I'm teaching a carbine class and a student wants to check out my AR's optic or some accessory and I hand it to them hot with a 30 round mag, we're both in violation of the law. I'd have to remove the mag and pass it off for them to load another mag. The issue with that is, if I allow someone to shoot my guns in a class to "play" with my setup, I have them shoot my ammo so I know any issues that occur are my fault and not their ammo inducing the problem. Same thing goes at a 3-Gun match. If someone's gun goes tits up and I loan them mine, I have them shoot my ammo for safety sake. The whole think is totally knob headed!
If you're teaching a class then the #1 priority is safety. You shouldn't be handing them a 'hot' rifle anyway. Drop the mag and clear the chamber and both parties are in compliance with the law. I see where this could get harry but in the specific example you stated I don't see an issue if you're doing your part as an instructor of a student.
Additionally, the big issue I see is that if I'm teaching a carbine class and a student wants to check out my AR's optic or some accessory and I hand it to them hot with a 30 round mag, we're both in violation of the law. I'd have to remove the mag and pass it off for them to load another mag. The issue with that is, if I allow someone to shoot my guns in a class to "play" with my setup, I have them shoot my ammo so I know any issues that occur are my fault and not their ammo inducing the problem. Same thing goes at a 3-Gun match. If someone's gun goes tits up and I loan them mine, I have them shoot my ammo for safety sake. The whole think is totally knob headed!
My concern is a poorly-informed LEO or sheriff wandering by in his daily routines, driving up at an outdoor range.
If the LEO is poorly informed, he'll likely just say "Is that a 30 round mag? That's ILLEGAL! Step into my office, son!" No amount of "But it was from before the ban!" is going to stop him if he thinks he's caught him a fish that day.
You'll get arrested; the mag confiscated, and sure, maybe in the courts it'll be dismissed eventually, but your life will be turned upside down until it is.
I wouldn't depend on the courts... Years, if anything, and as far as I know, a mag size limit bill has never been overturned or reversed in any state. Once this is law, it will be permanent. Unfortunately I'm not in a position where I can pick up and move, so I guess I'm just going to bring 10 rounders out to the range from now on; it's just not worth the risk.
(And isn't that the reaction they wanted us to have, anyways? You know, so that we don't, I don't know, on the way to the range, go 'oh well heck, I have 20 extra rounds, and I'm runnin' 15 minutes early, I might as well stop at this school and kill me some children, because I sure do love this 'culture of violence' and I've got some spare ammo and time!)
Agree -- Lawsuits might make us feel like we have some recourse but in reality, they wont' work. And yes, the 15 limit is to make them seem 'reasonable' while still limiting the "evil, bad" AR to 10 rounds.
Forget gun manufacturers just jumping to "CA Compliant" - many online dealers and shippers already won't deal with the discrepancy and simply wont ship anything > 10 rounds to anyplace that has a round limit whatsoever. It's just "We will not ship any magazine over 10 rounds to (list of states)."
I'm not even sure of the legality of some of these custom mags out there like "Magpul 30 round body, limited to 15" sold at places like RifleGear. You have that out in public (outdoor range), a local officer is still going to have a field day with you.
This is effectively a 10 round limit; the 15 round and grandfathering provisions (without transfer) are simply feelgood measures. Unenforceable (as 'convict you' for it), yes. But I sure don't want to risk losing my job, lots of money, and dealing with the courts and a lawyer because Barney Fife decides to feel his oats one day. Ergo, it's a 10 round limit. And will have the affect they desired - which is not "saving children", but punishing lawful gun owners.
Fried Chicken Blowout
02-17-2013, 13:56
You shouldn't be handing them a 'hot' rifle anyway.
Well I won't infringe on your belief, just don't slam me for my teaching without any knowledge of how I teach, what I teach or who I teach.
If the LEO is poorly informed, he'll likely just say "Is that a 30 round mag? That's ILLEGAL! Step into my office, son!" No amount of "But it was from before the ban!" is going to stop him if he thinks he's caught him a fish that day.
Exactly choose your shooting location wisely or you get to pay lawyers fees for nothing. It all just makes me want to cry.
My concern is a poorly-informed LEO or sheriff...
Say no more. With the bazillions of laws our society feels the need to create it's not possible for the individuals tasked with enforcing them to know them all. Face it, there just closing on our freedom at this point. You can't control a free man. The way to control a free man is to create laws that make everyone a criminal. Once they're all criminals the control is simple.
Well I won't infringe on your belief, just don't slam me for my teaching without any knowledge of how I teach, what I teach or who I teach.
Belief? This isn't my opinion. You shouldn't be handing a 'hot' rifle to anyone let along students in a class. I'm not assuming anything I'm making a statement based on your statements.
After looking at my magazines today I got to thinking, what does this bill define as a magazine? Is it the sum of all the parts or does it apply to the pieces of a magazine that is not assembled. Lets say I need to replace the spring in of the the 30 rd magazines that I already have. Would under this bill I be allowed to? After all the only thing different between that and a smaller capacity magazine is the spring length. If I had all the components of a 30 round magazine but not assembled would this be legal? Could I transport this past state lines? After all a gun barrel does not make a gun.
theGinsue
02-17-2013, 15:33
Almost a moot point.
No grandfathering is mentioned in the bill so existing magazines over 15 rounds would be illegal upon the bill becoming a law/enactment date.
The bill states that no magazine would be able to be modified to accept more than the limited number of rounds, so even if the mag was in pieces, it could be "modified" (re-assembled) to accept more than the legal limit.
ETA: re-read the bill. There is a grandfather clause. My error.
ChunkyMonkey
02-17-2013, 15:40
Please stop trying to make sense anything that comes out of liberals, they defy logic and facts.
In China in the 50s they illegality (criminalized) violins because the cases were being used to smuggle weapons.
[MOD: Fixed it for you -Ginsue]
ChunkyMonkey
02-17-2013, 15:42
^ sorry my auto correct messed that up
DeusExMachina
02-17-2013, 15:47
No grandfathering is mentioned in the bill so existing magazines over 15 rounds would be illegal upon the bill becoming a law/enactment date.
That is incorrect. Magazines before the date the bill is enacted are exempt, but magazines over 15 rounds may not be transferred or sold.
SuperiorDG
02-17-2013, 15:50
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0216/20130216__20130217_B1_CD17GUNCOMPARE-316%7Ep1.jpg
Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, and fellow legislators celebrate after initial approval of four gun-control bills Friday. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)
This picture really upsets me. I can't wait for the next election. And the next time I see her in public I will tell her how I feel about these choices.
After looking at my magazines today I got to thinking, what does this bill define as a magazine? Is it the sum of all the parts or does it apply to the pieces of a magazine that is not assembled. Lets say I need to replace the spring in of the the 30 rd magazines that I already have. Would under this bill I be allowed to? After all the only thing different between that and a smaller capacity magazine is the spring length. If I had all the components of a 30 round magazine but not assembled would this be legal? Could I transport this past state lines? After all a gun barrel does not make a gun.
Here is the text of that fiasco:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_01.pdf
and the amendments
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5/$FILE/HB1224_C_001.pdf
4 PART 3
5 LARGE-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES
6 18-12-301. Definitions.AS USED IN THIS PART 3,UNLESS THE
7 CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
8 (1) "BUREAU"MEANS THE COLORADO BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
9 CREATED AND EXISTING PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-33.5-401, C.R.S.
10 (2) (a) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE"MEANS A FIXED OR
11 DETACHABLE MAGAZINE,BOX,DRUM,FEED STRIP,OR SIMILAR DEVICE
12 CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING,OR THAT CAN BE READILY CONVERTED TO
13 ACCEPT,MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION OR MORE THAN FIVE
14 SHOTGUN SHELLS.
15 (b) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE"DOES NOT MEAN:
16 (I) AFEEDING DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY ALTERED SO
1 THAT IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN TEN ROUNDS OF
2 AMMUNITION; 2
3 (II) A .22CALIBER TUBE AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE;OR
4 (III) ATUBULAR MAGAZINE THAT IS CONTAINED IN A
5 LEVER-ACTION FIREARM.
In response to your question, the readily converted section of that definition would rule out replacing mag bodies. You could get away with springs and floorplates. It says nothing about crossing state lines or transportation. It appears that you could transport them yourself across staee lines and back, but you have better have a way to prove possession before you left.
And TheGinsue, grandfathering is mentioned:
17 (2) (a) APERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF
18 HE OR SHE:
19 (I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE
20 DATE OF THIS SECTION;AND
21 (II) MAINTAINS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LARGE-CAPACITY
22 MAGAZINE.
Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, and fellow legislators celebrate after initial approval of four gun-control bills Friday. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)
This picture really upsets me. I can't wait for the next election. And the next time I see her in public I will tell her how I feel about these choices.
This is how our liberty dies, to thunderous applause and cheers. No one should be celebrating an infringement on the Bill of Rights.
DeusExMachina
02-17-2013, 16:04
Who else is in that picture celebrating?
xiondavis
02-17-2013, 16:08
Does the following wording mean that as a grandfathered owner of said magazines, I don't have to prove their origin and any burden of proof is on the prosecution? I'm not going to have my personal possessions noterized.
(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
DeusExMachina
02-17-2013, 16:10
Besides the unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional limit of 15 round magazines, one thing that is a huge concern is Colorado legislature's dictation over my personal property.
They are saying that if I own a magazine over 15 rounds before the date this becomes law, I must own it until I die. Then what? It must be destroyed? I can't pass it to my children or friends?
And it cannot be sold or given away. Is there anything else on this Earth that I purchase with my own money and cannot sell or give away?
There isn't enough attention being paid to this stipulation.
DeusExMachina
02-17-2013, 16:15
Well I won't infringe on your belief, just don't slam me for my teaching without any knowledge of how I teach, what I teach or who I teach.
[/COLOR]
You are calling a general rule of gun safety a "belief". It is a bad practice and you are apparently not NRA certified, or don't pay attention to NRA gun safety rules.
Besides the unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional limit of 15 round magazines, one thing that is a huge concern is Colorado legislature's dictation over my personal property.
They are saying that if I own a magazine over 15 rounds before the date this becomes law, I must own it until I die. Then what? It must be destroyed? I can't pass it to my children or friends?
And it cannot be sold or given away. Is there anything else on this Earth that I purchase with my own money and cannot sell or give away?
There isn't enough attention being paid to this stipulation.
Excellent point. I wonder if putting the magazines in a trust would circumnavigate this foolishness. A trust can never die and you can add and remove people as you see fit.
On a side note, since the burden of proof is on the state couldn't you easily remove the serial number from a magazine you purchased (pre-ban of course)? These magazines are still my property the last time I checked. A free man should be able to do whatever he wants with his own property. It would seem like you should also be able to buy replacement parts for your magazines as well. I have the right to maintain my property do I not? There seem to be a lot of "loopholes" and constitutional issues with the proposed legislation.
Almost a moot point.
No grandfathering is mentioned in the bill so existing magazines over 15 rounds would be illegal upon the bill becoming a law/enactment date.
The bill states that no magazine would be able to be modified to accept more than the limited number of rounds, so even if the mag was in pieces, it could be "modified" (re-assembled) to accept more than the legal limit.
ETA: re-read the bill. There is a grandfather clause. My error.
True. I'm just giving the state every opportunity to not make me a criminal because to be honest I'm not changing the way that I live.
DeusExMachina
02-17-2013, 16:35
Excellent point. I wonder if putting the magazines in a trust would circumnavigate this foolishness. A trust can never die and you can add and remove people as you see fit.
On a side note, since the burden of proof is on the state couldn't you easily remove the serial number from a magazine you purchased (pre-ban of course)? These magazines are still my property the last time I checked. A free man should be able to do whatever he wants with his own property. It would seem like you should also be able to buy replacement parts for your magazines as well. I have the right to maintain my property do I not? There seem to be a lot of "loopholes" and constitutional issues with the proposed legislation.
Not a bad idea. I already have an NFA trust.
Who else is in that picture celebrating?
I watched the live feed for a majority of the day. Whoever the guy is who's running the show in the main seat gave a high five to the dude to his left twice and I heard the guy he high fived ask: What's next? Needless to say... I was pissed off.
newracer
02-17-2013, 17:45
Rumor is these reps are on the fence.
From another forum
If you wan to help Colorado and the country below is a list of Dems that might be persuaded to go to the good side. I am a native of Co and can't believe this BS. The final vote is on Monday, so blow this up. Here is a link to their e-mail addresses.
Colorado General Assembly
f you’re not sure what to say, here’s some sample language: “Representative: Please do not penalize Colorado’s law-abiding gun owners. I urge you to vote “NO” on these anti-gun bills (HB-1224, HB-226, HB-1228 & HB-1229).”
Representative District Phone
Ed Vigil HD 62 (303)-866-2916 edvigil1@gmail.com
Joseph Salazar HD 31 (303)-866-2918 joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us
Daniel Kagan HD 3 (303)-866-2921 repkagan@gmail.com
Max Tyler HD 23 (303)-866-2951 max@maxtyler.us
Dominick Moreno HD 32 (303)-866-2964 dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us
Dian Mitsch Bush HD 26 (303)-866-2923 diane.mitschbush.house@state.co.us
Leroy Garcia HD 46 (303)-866-2968 leroy.garcia.house@state.co.us
Steve Lebsock HD 34 (303)-866-2931 steve.lebsock.house@state.co.us
Dave Young HD 50 (303)-866-2929 dave.young.house@state.co.us
Tracy Kraft-Tharp HD 29 (303)-866-2950 reptracy29@gmail.com
John Buckner HD 40 (303)-866-2944. john.buckner.house@state.co.us
edvigil1@gmail.com; joseph.salazar.house@state.co.us; repkagan@gmail.com; max@maxtyler.us; dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us; diane.mitschbush.house@state.co.us; leroy.garcia.house@state.co.us; steve.lebsock.house@state.co.us; dave.young.house@state.co.us; reptracy29@gmail.com; john.buckner.house@state.co.us
Dunecrazzy
02-17-2013, 18:35
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0216/20130216__20130217_B1_CD17GUNCOMPARE-316%7Ep1.jpg
Rep. Sue Schafer, D-Wheat Ridge, and fellow legislators celebrate after initial approval of four gun-control bills Friday. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post)
This picture really upsets me. I can't wait for the next election. And the next time I see her in public I will tell her how I feel about these choices.
Rep. Schafer
Rep. Schafer has a bachelor’s degree in secondary education from the University of Nebraska, a master’s from the University of Colorado in counseling/psychology, a Doctorate of Education from the University of Northern Colorado, and a principal’s license from Colorado State University. She lives with her life partner of 17 years and their rescued dog and cat. She has two daughters.
Just sent out another blast.
There is no law against defacing magazines. So go ahead and grind off serial numbers and dates to your heart's content. Or just go to Wyoming and sell your magazines there, CO law has no bearing there. However, my understanding is that if you came back to CO without the magazine, you are committing a class 2 misdemeanor since you did not maintain continuous possession.
Further, this bill means you are committing a crime if you hand your Glock 17 or let your friend hold your 30 round PMAG. There is no exceptions for target shooting or self defense. If your girlfriend in a panic grabs your Glock 17 with 17 round mag, she will commit a class 2 misdemeanor in the course of defending herself. If you hand over your AR15 with 30 round PMAG to your friend to take a few shots, you have both just committed a class 2 misdemeanor. If your instructor at your CCW class does a safety check or shows you a technique with your gun, you have both just committed a class 2 misdemeanor. The next time I take a friend shooting and if this law is enacted, I will likely commit dozens of misdemeanors just by trying out each others guns.
But I feel safer...
Dunecrazzy
02-17-2013, 19:00
I would like to hearyour ideas at sue@sueschafer.com or at 303-918-2660. And please visit my website www.sueschafer.com
She wants to hear from all of you. I have sent her three emails and plan on calling her tomorrow.
blacklabel
02-17-2013, 19:08
From Facebook:
Magpul Industries Corp.
We're hearing some rumors that the Gov and the Dem caucus think we are bluffing. Just to clarify for them, then...we're not a political company. We dont play political games. We've made our position very clear, very publicly. We would not survive lying to our customer base, nor would we ever consider it. If you pass this, we will leave, and you will own it. We've already got plans in place to get PMAG manufacturing moved rapidly, and the rest of the company will follow. We will make sure to at least have a small remain-behind operation through the 2014 elections so that we can remind folks why we are gone.
StagLefty
02-17-2013, 19:31
If only they'd stuck to calling them "clips" in the bill-30 round clips. We'd be OK. [ROFL1]
My latest letter if anyone wants something to go on
I'm saddened to see our legislature's knee jerk reaction to the recent tragedies in Connecticut and Aurora. I have read bills HB13-1224, HB13-1226, HB13-1228 and HB13-1229 and I fail to see how any of these measures would decrease violent crime or reduce tragedies in any way.
Any restriction on magazine size is arbitrary and capricious - and as you well know is patently unconstitutional after SCOTUS's decisions in Heller and Miller. The 30 round AR-15 magazine is by far the most widely used piece of arms in common use today. It is absurd to think this legislation would survive even the most basic constitutional challenge. Please do not waste my tax dollars by starting a legal fight that cannot be won.
As your constituent, I insist you oppose any and all new gun control schemes and magazine limits.
How will you vote on these bills?
Thank you,
I would like to hearyour ideas at sue@sueschafer.com or at 303-918-2660. And please visit my website www.sueschafer.com (http://www.sueschafer.com)
She wants to hear from all of you. I have sent her three emails and plan on calling her tomorrow.
Done. Said succinctly that HB-1224 will have too much negative affect on legitimate folks who are not a risk, and no safety benefit against criminals who will continue to have access to these items, and to please consider going about this another way that does not cost jobs and won't criminalize law-abiding citizens.
Hope it does not fall on deaf ears. Though that picture makes me think she's probably full of disgust towards us.
COvigilance
02-17-2013, 22:24
If only they'd stuck to calling them "clips" in the bill-30 round clips. We'd be OK. [ROFL1]
Maybe we'll get lucky and one of the libs will change it for us
Rep. Dave Young, District 50, will be voting yes to 3 of the 4 restrictive bills. The only one he is against is the fees for background checks. So he is absolutely not on the fence.
I've just sent a customized email to each one of them; (I don't really want to do a 'blast' just because its easier; I want to put in the legwork if i'm expecting to make a difference on these bills...)
So, Young is not on the fence... Has anyone gotten a "I am definitely voting yes, sorry" from anyone else on this latest focused list?
Also, and I quote Young's own words. When it comes to his voting practice,he votes: conscious first, constituents second, and caucus third. So in other words he has his own agenda, great job Greeley and Evans for voting this scumbag into office. Typical liberal bs. Should be constituents only. He works for us.
Besides the unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional limit of 15 round magazines, one thing that is a huge concern is Colorado legislature's dictation over my personal property.
They are saying that if I own a magazine over 15 rounds before the date this becomes law, I must own it until I die. Then what? It must be destroyed? I can't pass it to my children or friends?
And it cannot be sold or given away. Is there anything else on this Earth that I purchase with my own money and cannot sell or give away?
There isn't enough attention being paid to this stipulation.
This is a part I have a huge problem with. If it's applicable, it's a form of confiscation in my opinion.
I have been saying this constantly. 15 round AR mags do not exist and therefore ARE NOT COMMON (read Columbia vs Heller). The handguns that are made for magazines larger then 15 rounds do not HAVE 15 round available.
Columbia vs Heller protects OUR rights to own what's is lawful and in common use at the time. This would include the very magazines these guns are sold with.
I will be happy to put my name on a law suite.
I just hope people are putting on their polite faces when writing... As I said over on ARFCOM, we need to convince, not berate... Invectives and screeds, as much as they may make us feel better, are best saved till after the vote is final...
Great-Kazoo
02-17-2013, 23:20
My concern is a poorly-informed LEO or sheriff wandering by in his daily routines, driving up at an outdoor range.
If the LEO is poorly informed, he'll likely just say "Is that a 30 round mag? That's ILLEGAL! Step into my office, son!" No amount of "But it was from before the ban!" is going to stop him if he thinks he's caught him a fish that day.
You'll get arrested; the mag confiscated, and sure, maybe in the courts it'll be dismissed eventually, but your life will be turned upside down until it is.
I wouldn't depend on the courts... Years, if anything, and as far as I know, a mag size limit bill has never been overturned or reversed in any state. Once this is law, it will be permanent. Unfortunately I'm not in a position where I can pick up and move, so I guess I'm just going to bring 10 rounders out to the range from now on; it's just not worth the risk.
(And isn't that the reaction they wanted us to have, anyways? You know, so that we don't, I don't know, on the way to the range, go 'oh well heck, I have 20 extra rounds, and I'm runnin' 15 minutes early, I might as well stop at this school and kill me some children, because I sure do love this 'culture of violence' and I've got some spare ammo and time!)
Officer please call your watch commander (or what ever they are called) and have him on site. This is a capricious & arbitrary law, unenforceable at the very least. Unless you are running amok when doing a class and or competition , there is never any LE snooping. . I have yet to see any LE wandering around "Looking" ,if anything those on site are shooting along side you.
The Overt paranoia regarding this law is running amok.
Good thing i shoot in weld & larimer cty.
Note to everyone. THIS IS being voted on Monday (tomorrow). Surprised me too, but heads up on that; this is according to Rep. Steve Lebsock, who, by the way, says he is voting NO on 1224. (But still send your letters.)
Any idea on how it will be challenged and struck down?
No.... People keep saying this; it hasn't been struck down in any other state, I don't know why folks think Colorado will be different. We're just "joining the club" that's getting bigger and bigger.
Our fight is *now*; for the time being. Again, the vote is tomorrow out of the House. I know of two Dems voting NO, we need 3 more. If it passes the house it will be by 1-2 votes.
With enough pressure, and the right wording, there's still some possibility to make that 0.
I don't think we should even be talking about court challenges until everything is exhausted. Too many people are calling this a "done deal", it's that kind of apathy that lets it BE a done deal...
No.... People keep saying this; it hasn't been struck down in any other state, I don't know why folks think Colorado will be different. We're just "joining the club" that's getting bigger and bigger.
Our fight is *now*; for the time being. Again, the vote is tomorrow out of the House. I know of two Dems voting NO, we need 3 more. If it passes the house it will be by 1-2 votes.
With enough pressure, and the right wording, there's still some possibility to make that 0.
I don't think we should even be talking about court challenges until everything is exhausted. Too many people are calling this a "done deal", it's that kind of apathy that lets it BE a done deal...
How far away are your elections? somthing times me come election time they will be hyper backlash.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/docs/2013ElectionCalendar.pdf
So we do have some up for re-election in November (early voting in October); but i'm not sure who's up for re-election in the state House and Senate.
There likely will be backlash but I'm just concerned that it'll have no real effect. So, revenge may be enacted but the laws will likely stay in place. Repeal and replace is possible, but only if replacement candidates run on it.
Someone mentioned to me he thought that there used to be a statewide 20-round limit in Colorado, but "only Denver retained it" after it was overturned... (and this is why Colorado has a 20 round limit still.) Is this mistaken information? If it's not, the precedent would be well worth examining... I'm guessing it is a mistake because for sure, if a round limit had been reversed before in Colorado, we would have seen it come up in opposing views.
My only guess is to how it could be defeated in court is taking it to the Supreme Court and argue how it undermines the term "common use" as was mentioned in United States vs Miller. In US v Miller, the Supreme Court said, in regards to the 2A, that the militia was expected to be armed with and bring their own weapons that are in common use at that time. It SHOULDN'T be difficult to prove that 16-19 round magazines for handguns and 20-30 round magazines for rifles are very much so in "common use" today.
We need to start coming up with and compiling a list of common and/or popular firearms that are sold today whose capacity is greater than 15 while listing their capacity. If we can come up with a few dozen to several dozen firearms to add to that list... that will lay the groundwork for such a case.
I start. A few firearms I have experience with that come with greater than 15 rounds standard and are in common use today:
Handguns:
Springfield Armory XDM 3.8 .40: 16 round capacity
Springfield Armory XDM .40: 16 round capacity
Springfield Armory XDM 5.25 9mm: 19 round capacity
Rifles:
Nearly every AR 15 I have seen sold that doesn't go to CA is sold with a 30-round magazine.
Keep contributing!
muddywings
02-18-2013, 06:54
My only guess is to how it could be defeated in court is taking it to the Supreme Court and argue how it undermines the term "common use" as was mentioned in United States vs Miller. In US v Miller, the Supreme Court said, in regards to the 2A, that the militia was expected to be armed with and bring their own weapons that are in common use at that time. It SHOULDN'T be difficult to prove that 16-19 round magazines for handguns and 20-30 round magazines for rifles are very much so in "common use" today.
We need to start coming up with and compiling a list of common and/or popular firearms that are sold today whose capacity is greater than 15 while listing their capacity. If we can come up with a few dozen to several dozen firearms to add to that list... that will lay the groundwork for such a case.
I start. A few firearms I have experience with that come with greater than 15 rounds standard and are in common use today:
Handguns:
Springfield Armory XDM 3.8 .40: 16 round capacity
Springfield Armory XDM .40: 16 round capacity
Springfield Armory XDM 5.25 9mm: 19 round capacity
Rifles:
Nearly every AR 15 I have seen sold that doesn't go to CA is sold with a 30-round magazine.
Keep contributing!
FNX9: 17 round
Goodburbon
02-18-2013, 06:58
Glock 17
Time to go belt fed.
still covered by the law. Don't you dare make more than 10 round belts.
Eventually it will end up in court, or so believes Antonin Scalia.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521413
Yes it will end up in court -- even if I have to fund it myself.
No it will not stand up to even intermediate scrutiny.
If passed it'll end up in court, if only to clarify that they can legally be sold out of state.
If that is not done then our property went from a value of $5+ each to scrap value. Pretty sure there are laws against doing that.
(my my, that was alot of 'if')
Great-Kazoo
02-18-2013, 09:29
What you need to realize is this is more than just about passing bans, or restrictions.
This is a game plan by AG's, dem's , VPC and very deep pocket liberals, against the NRA and gun owners in general. The way colorado turned blue and elected a D majority is how they are going to try and take down the 2nd.
There's that saying, Death By 1000 Cuts, that's their plan. Pass a law here, restrict there, ban everywhere. Hoping the NRA and state Gun groups challenge the rulings in court, which cost money, lots of it. If and when they succeed the country will be over run by the same folks / mentality we (America) fought so hard to defend against.
Holbert was almost in tears. Great guy, his constituents should be very proud.
Holbert was almost in tears. Great guy, his constituents should be very proud.
Did they vote already?
No they are doing some more commenting pre-vote
But Jim, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it? It's about the children. I know I'm willing to give up some freedom for a feeling of security. Real men fight it out with their hands. Come on, do you really think we have to fear a tyrannical government. If the founders had known how scary these weapons would be, they wouldn't ever have designed the second amendment. You should call the police if someone invades your property.
jackthewall81
02-18-2013, 12:13
Wonder when the votes will be in.
BlasterBob
02-18-2013, 12:27
You should call the police if someone invades your property.
Sure, out where I live, the LEO's will be out here in about 30 minutes with perfect road conditions! [blaster]
osok-308
02-18-2013, 12:28
If it passes there is no way in hell that it won't make it to court.
Looks like Fields' speaking then vote? Should be soon. She also just said "we can let you have" again....PUKE
lowbeyond
02-18-2013, 12:35
yep.
let you have. what a surprise.
and there is "incremental" again.
eta: no one needs. No one should be able to have.
lowbeyond
02-18-2013, 12:38
here we go
lowbeyond
02-18-2013, 12:39
34-31 mag limit passed
HB13-1224 (magazine capacity limit) passes the House with a 34 to 31 vote.
...speaking of houses, does anyone want to buy a real nice house in Colorado?
Okay, so Rocky is down, but the fight isn't over... still has to go through the State Senate- and don't we only need a few Dems to vote against it and it dies in the Senate? And, if it does in fact die in the senate, is it completely dead or do those slimy fucks have a way of bringing it back?
newracer
02-18-2013, 13:11
They could always reintroduce another bill with the same language.
Okay, so Rocky is down, but the fight isn't over... still has to go through the State Senate- and don't we only need a few Dems to vote against it and it dies in the Senate? And, if it does in fact die in the senate, is it completely dead or do those slimy fucks have a way of bringing it back?
They always can bring it back in different forms. When does the senate vote on this?
Okay, so Rocky is down, but the fight isn't over... still has to go through the State Senate- and don't we only need a few Dems to vote against it and it dies in the Senate? And, if it does in fact die in the senate, is it completely dead or do those slimy fucks have a way of bringing it back?
Yeah, just like we only needed a few Dems to vote it down in the House.
Yeah, just like we only needed a few Dems to vote it down in the House.
It will pass.. Liberals..... If you voted Dem on any state house or senate(or U.S.) then you voted for this. Hope you are happy. And it will have NO impact on gun violence. Because they waist their time on this stuff they are ignoring items that could actually reduce gun crime. That lack of focus on real effective(mental health issues, shielded security and single entrance at schools ect) action will cost lives...thus making them accomplices in murders to come.
TV said that we need 3 dems to kill it.
neversummer900
02-18-2013, 13:30
To this dispointing vote I have only one response I feel is appropriate.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
It will pass.
That was my point. This is a done deal. Like it or not. Only hope now is for law suits heard by the SCOTUS and the sooner the better as new appointments will not help the constitutional cause any.
Captain Trap
02-18-2013, 13:37
850 KOA said this bill has passed the Senate.
newracer
02-18-2013, 13:38
The senate is not even in session today.
newracer
02-18-2013, 13:39
Senate emails
Irene.aguilar.senate@state.co.us, bob.bacon.senate@state.co.us, betty.boyd.senate@state.co.us, greg@gregbrophy.net, bill.cadman.senate@state.co.us, morgan.carroll.senate@state.co.us, joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us, angela.giron.senate@state.co.us, kevin.grantham.senate@state.co.us,, lucia.guzman.senate@state.co.us, ted.harvey.senate@state.co.us,, rollie.health.senate@state.co.us,, mary.hodge.senate@state.co.us, senatorhudak@gmail.com, cheru.jahn.senate@state.co.us, mike.johnson.senate@state.co.us,, keith@keithking.org, steve.king.senate@state.co.us,, senatorlambert@comcast.net, kevin@kevinlundberg.com, shawnmitch@aol.com, john.morse.senate@state.co.us
Captain Trap
02-18-2013, 13:43
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22613895/colorado-house-debate-gun-bills-again-but-limited?source=pkg
(http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22613895/colorado-house-debate-gun-bills-again-but-limited?source=pkg)
HoneyBadger
02-18-2013, 13:48
Does anyone actually know when it is going before the senate?
Another biased anti and stupidly worded poll there.
If Colorado passes legislation banning the possession of high-capacity gun clips, should Colorado-based manufacturers of such magazines leave the state?
Yes. Let them carry through with their recent threats to leave. Colorado doesn't need them here.
No. HB 1224 makes it clear they could still legally produce high-capacity clips to sell elsewhere, and Colorado needs the jobs.
Unsure. I'm somewhere in the middle.
Madeinhb
02-18-2013, 14:16
But why would a company pay the taxes to the state that prevents them from selling to the local customers. I would leave. Company doesn't want to pay taxes to the government to sell elsewhere when they can move and pay less taxes to sell elsewhere also.
Madeinhb
02-18-2013, 14:18
HB13-1224 (magazine capacity limit) passes the House with a 34 to 31 vote.
...speaking of houses, does anyone want to buy a real nice house in Colorado?
Nope. Like magpul I'm looking into leaving.
But why would a company pay the taxes to the state that prevents them from selling to the local customers. I would leave. Company doesn't want to pay taxes to the government to sell elsewhere when they can move and pay less taxes to sell elsewhere also.
Exactly. This is also the reason I would move as I don't want my tax dollars to support a government that doesn't support me or work for me as was intended by our founding fathers.
Nope. Like magpul I'm looking into leaving.
That's what I'm doing... I would love to stay in my home state, I was raised here, grew up here, with the exception of the Army, lived here my whole life... thanks to the damned Democrats I'm now being pushed out of my home. The silver lining- Staying in Evergreen and have a hard time finding a nice house for under $250K, or move to WY and find a decent house for under $200K. Fuck you democrats, fuck you very much.
flan7211
02-18-2013, 14:59
Sorry for my ignorance but did this bill have a grandfather clause?
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 15:00
The link is posted a few comments above, but here is the breakdown of the vote for all you lazies:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0218/20130218__board~p1.jpg
Madeinhb
02-18-2013, 15:02
That's what I'm doing... I would love to stay in my home state, I was raised here, grew up here, with the exception of the Army, lived here my whole life... thanks to the damned Democrats I'm now being pushed out of my home. The silver lining- Staying in Evergreen and have a hard time finding a nice house for under $250K, or move to WY and find a decent house for under $200K. Fuck you democrats, fuck you very much.
I moved from California in 2009 thinking this was a great place to live. Dems have killed California and now are killing Colorado. Time to move again.
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 15:02
Sorry for my ignorance but did this bill have a grandfather clause?
Yes.
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.
ETA: Here's the actual language from the bill, the above is from the synopsis:
17 (2) (a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF18 HE OR SHE:
19 (I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE
20 DATE OF THIS SECTION; AND
21 (II) MAINTAINS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LARGE-CAPACITY
22 MAGAZINE.
This is the bill before amendments, though I don't think this part changed any.
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 15:03
Anyone else thinking about removing all the date stamps from their PMAGs, regardless of date? Or is it just me?
The link is posted a few comments above, but here is the breakdown of the vote for all you lazies:
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0218/20130218__board~p1.jpg
There was 34 ayes so this screen grab must have been taken before the vote was final.
Anyone else thinking about removing all the date stamps from their PMAGs, regardless of date? Or is it just me?
Tampering with the date is a sure fire way to get jammed up.
Anyone else thinking about removing all the date stamps from their PMAGs, regardless of date? Or is it just me?
SHHHH!
but yes. [Beer]
tmleadr03
02-18-2013, 15:14
I just e-mailed the senators.
On a side note, this is going to do wonders for mag prices...
I just e-mailed the senators.
On a side note, this is going to do wonders for mag prices...
Yup, Prices are going back up on gunbroker. They were up at $50 per 30 round Pmag at peak. Down to $30 lately. Now up to $40 and you can bet they will go up. Holding on to mine forever now.... Well, I will probably transfer most to my 18 year old boy on 30 June.
Cylinder Head
02-18-2013, 15:28
Anyone else thinking about removing all the date stamps from their PMAGs, regardless of date? Or is it just me?
Date stamps are an easy way out of trouble if your mag is preban. I would keep a copy of the grandfather clause in my bag and be clear.
Troy Battlemags do not have a date stamp on them.
mtnrider
02-18-2013, 15:29
SO is this final now or are there more steps before it goes into effect. Also what is the effective date?
.
tmleadr03
02-18-2013, 15:31
Is anyone else getting a lot of e-mail bounced back to them? I have now had four bounce back.
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 15:31
But it would be illegal for me to acquire them after the effective date of this bill (assuming it passes), so the date is irrelevant, right?
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 15:32
SO is this final now or are there more steps before it goes into effect. Also what is the effective date?
.
Still has to go to the Senate and be signed by the Gov. July 1st.
kidicarus13
02-18-2013, 15:35
I just e-mailed the senators.
On a side note, this is going to do wonders for mag prices...
Colorado is only 1-of-50. At the rate Magpul is producing mags I suspect prices will be reasonable again come summer. Unless of course something on the national level occurs.
Proposed effective date is July 1, 2013. Hickenpooper could sign in it before "for the public safety."
House passes the bills to Senate. It has to go through Senate committee before it hits the floor. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application/pdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1231572728402&ssbinary=true
This has been posted ad infinitum...
hghclsswhitetrsh
02-18-2013, 15:39
SO is this final now or are there more steps before it goes into effect. Also what is the effective date?
.
VxT7QjlvDqM
skip forward to 1:40.
VxT7QjlvDqM
skip forward to 1:40.
At 2:24 the second to last in line is screwed......
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 15:50
At 2:24 the second to last in line is screwed......
[ROFL1] Could you imagine if that was in an educational cartoon today?
hghclsswhitetrsh
02-18-2013, 15:52
[ROFL1] Could you imagine if that was in an educational cartoon today?
Immediate paid administrative leave for the teacher.
[ROFL1] Could you imagine if that was in an educational cartoon today?
I would probably look like anime. Every congressperson that the bill talked to would be transgender, multi raced, gay, or liberal
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 16:24
On non date stamped mags all you have to do is say you had them before the ban. That's why this law is so enforceable. It works on the honor system.
lowbeyond
02-18-2013, 16:28
I wouldn't advocate lying to a Judge or prosecutor.
Mike
oh yea. definitely. casue that is a crime. and you want to be a law abiding citizen !
law abiding citizen. That is one of the biggest phrases of self delusion spoken. I bet you, aka people in general, are guilty of something. Some of you are probably guilty of zomg ! felonies. You just don't know it.
You just have not been caught and/or charged yet.
hollohas
02-18-2013, 16:33
I don't see anywhere in the bill that says all mags without date stamps will be assumed to be post ban. Therefore, how do they expect to enforce this law for non-stamped mags?
Are manufactures required by law to date stamp mags? If not, then they should all stop putting dates on them immediately.
If I were Magpul I would stamp 30 June 2013 forever. What law does that violate? Just a random date we like. Commemorative. Colorado legislature says so much as "boo" and we are out of here along with all your taxes and jobs.
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 16:39
If I were Magpul I would stamp 30 June 2013 forever. What law does that violate? Just a random date we like. Commemorative. Colorado legislature says so much as "boo" and we are out of here along with all your taxes and jobs.
I like this idea.
hollohas
02-18-2013, 16:50
If I were Magpul I would stamp 30 June 2013 forever. What law does that violate? Just a random date we like. Commemorative. Colorado legislature says so much as "boo" and we are out of here along with all your taxes and jobs.
LOVE this idea.
Remember that anything you put on the internet will be there forever.
Magpul has already said they have been date coding their mags since 2007.
This crap still has to make it through Senate committee and the floor votes, so nothing is law yet.
Pround to have Rs that represent my area and vote no on this crap.
Great-Kazoo
02-18-2013, 17:31
That's what I'm doing... I would love to stay in my home state, I was raised here, grew up here, with the exception of the Army, lived here my whole life... thanks to the damned Democrats I'm now being pushed out of my home. The silver lining- Staying in Evergreen and have a hard time finding a nice house for under $250K, or move to WY and find a decent house for under $200K AND A JOB . Fuck you democrats, fuck you very much.
On non date stamped mags all you have to do is say you had them before the ban. That's why this law is so enforceable. It works on the honor system.
i never thought that the politicians here are so stupid, what is the idea of this hi-cap mags ban? i have 15+ hi-cap AR mags and no one have any date stamped, of course i never do this but if i sell it to the next stupid that make the next masacre who can know? there is no way to know, how to enforce this stupid law? an honor? THE CRIMINALS HAVE HONOR??? WTF??? this is ridiculous. Im new here in CO but the state are in a good economic position to lost the 600 employes of magpul (i dont found a job yet) and also they prefer to lost the 85 milions in taxes of MP just for an "Honor Enforced Law?"
please, someone tell me that im sleeping and this is a bad dream because i though that all people here (including politicians) are Intelligent.
Jackrabbit
02-18-2013, 18:03
It works because gun owners are in general law abiding citizens.
We need to stop policing ourselves. There's a big difference between a criminal, and one who simply ignores bullshit laws.
It works because gun owners are in general law abiding citizens.
We need to stop policing ourselves. There's a big difference between a criminal, and one who simply ignores bullshit laws.
criminals are NOT law abiding citizenns, this morrons politicians dont know this?
eadgbe194
02-18-2013, 18:09
Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but I just read the text of the bill and didn't see an exemption for law enforcement or military. Anyone know anything about one? I hope there's not, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.
im sorry, im so angry and very frustrated with all of this bullshit.
if this crap passes it will be the first time in a long time I'll be happy that I work in new mexico, and have coworkers and friends that live there. I'll be changing my shipping address to their house, and picking them up on the way home.
Truly a bad day to be from Colorado. Who voted for these ass fuck clowns?
eadgbe194
02-18-2013, 18:18
Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but I just read the text of the bill and didn't see an exemption for law enforcement or military. Anyone know anything about one? I hope there's not, they should be subject to the same laws as everyone else.
Nevermind, ammended bill has exemptions. Guess they are more equal than us.
R2Chief2
02-18-2013, 18:23
Just saw Rep Salazar from Thorton on the news saying he doesn't understand why people think that Magpul would leave the state as a result of the ban and that the law was written so that Magpul could still conduct business within Colorado...
...then moments later, they go to a represenative from Magpul who flat out states that they are NOT posturing or playing chicken, that they will leave, and that several states have already contacted them with incentives.
Salazer is a moron!!!
Truly a bad day to be from Colorado. Who voted for these ass fuck clowns?
people who were sick of the republicans ranting about gays.
Another non issue.
was just the first social issue that came to mind since the (D) have been hyping it so much.
Did the sponsors really think these 2 bills were going to do anything positive?
Offenses Against Unborn Children (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/26BEB7FB6BA66EF987257A8E0073C736?Open&file=1032_01.pdf)
Abortion Ban (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/682189CF4426DDCA87257AEE0054BC4B?Open&file=1033_01.pdf)
Hard to vote for someone like that unless you are already a believer. When you have to hold your nose when voting either way, well, the 2nd isn't the most important issue for many.
ghettoblaster
02-18-2013, 18:58
if this crap passes it will be the first time in a long time I'll be happy that I work in new mexico, and have coworkers and friends that live there. I'll be changing my shipping address to their house, and picking them up on the way home.
I told my wife today that if this thing truly does pass, I'll be more than happy to move to another state. My theory goes that you have to move to virtually ANY state that liberals don't want to live in. Texas used to look pretty good, but not so much any more. Now that Colorado is becoming Libtopia, I can't see it surviving very long in its current state.
The question is, where to now? Or can this be reversed?
Yes it will. Matter of time. If someone else didn't bring it to the table eventually we'd help the process. This is State courts, not a federal matter. One thing is for sure it has to be done RIGHT. Get an idiot attorney in the mix and we will lose everything. Needs proper backing in authorities, awesome briefs, someone experienced in working the "new theory of law" concept. Not somebody shelling out a few k's to an attorney - the vast majority don't even have a days experience in court, but they will lie their ass off. This needs to be handled by the experienced.
We have some of the biggest pro-gun constitutional scholars living in Colorado. This won't stand. Getting Lott, Levitt, Kopel, et. al to help will not be an issue.
I told my wife today that if this thing truly does pass, I'll be more than happy to move to another state. My theory goes that you have to move to virtually ANY state that liberals don't want to live in. Texas used to look pretty good, but not so much any more. Now that Colorado is becoming Libtopia, I can't see it surviving very long in its current state.
The question is, where to now? Or can this be reversed?
not law yet, they have to ram it through the senate.
One last chance to kill it there.
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/89701-Last-Stand-Against-Gun-Bills-The-Senate
Where is your senator on there? Mine is greyed out, very safe district. I'll send him a nice letter anyway but it wont do any good.
After that, 2014 and turn house, senate and governor (R) and overturn. if it doesn't happen then it probably never will.
We only need to convince one of the three Ds on Judiciary. Yeah, that is kind of like convincing a Coyote not to eat a cat. Unfortunately, all of these three are in solid Democratic districts and stand little chance of defeat should they vote in favor of this bill.
ghettoblaster
02-18-2013, 19:12
We have some of the biggest pro-gun constitutional scholars living in Colorado. This won't stand. Getting Lott, Levitt, Kopel, et. al to help will not be an issue.
Fear trumps logic and wisdom sometimes. Right now, libs are living off the fear created by "mag size". Stupid and illogical, but refer to previous statement....
ghettoblaster
02-18-2013, 19:15
We only need to convince one of the three Ds on Judiciary. Yeah, that is kind of like convincing a Coyote not to eat a cat. Unfortunately, all of these three are in solid Democratic districts and stand little chance of defeat should they vote in favor of this bill.
hmmmmm makes me think of throwing a dead cat on their porch to lure in some coyotes..... J/K but honestly there has got to be a way for these guys to see reason. If not, they need a change of occupation as quick as possible.
Great-Kazoo
02-18-2013, 19:44
Truly a bad day to be from Colorado. Who voted for these ass fuck clowns?
NYNCO
If I were Magpul I would stamp 30 June 2013 forever. What law does that violate? Just a random date we like. Commemorative. Colorado legislature says so much as "boo" and we are out of here along with all your taxes and jobs.
Better yet, put today's date so that those who voted it into law have a constant reminder at how idiotic they are.
Remember that anything you put on the internet will be there forever.
Magpul has already said they have been date coding their mags since 2007.
This crap still has to make it through Senate committee and the floor votes, so nothing is law yet.
They also just posted on other forums that they will begin producing Pmags w/o dates WELL before they become illegal. This way, moving forward, if you have Pmags w/o dates they will have no way to prove you acquired them after the date. Just learn this line: 'I've had those mags since before they were deemed unfit to own and illegal by my dbag representatives'
people who were sick of the republicans ranting about gays.
Good point.
Tinelement
02-18-2013, 19:55
Better yet, put today's date so that those who voted it into law have a constant reminder at how idiotic they are.
I like that idea!!
Do the date it becomes law and offer them as a commemorative Mag for Coloradans!
Someone get on the horn with Magpul!!
not law yet, they have to ram it through the senate.
One last chance to kill it there.
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/89701-Last-Stand-Against-Gun-Bills-The-Senate
Where is your senator on there? Mine is greyed out, very safe district. I'll send him a nice letter anyway but it wont do any good.
After that, 2014 and turn house, senate and governor (R) and overturn. if it doesn't happen then it probably never will.
You really think it needs to be rammed? It will pass probably by a larger margin than it did the house. Face it, committee was our best chance at getting this shit squashed before getting the SCOTUS involved. The writing is on the wall now and our only hope will be the very entity that most pro-2A supporters despise. The Federal government. Irony defined.
I like that idea!!
Do the date it becomes law and offer them as a commemorative Mag for Coloradans!
Someone get on the horn with Magpul!!
If they hire me in whatever state they relocate to I'll let them use the idea free of charge. lol
When will this officially become law?
Still has to pass the Senate if I am correct?
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 20:16
When will this officially become law?
Depends on if it passes the senate and is signed by the governor.
If you read the bill it says...
HB 13-1224 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_ren.pdf)
schapman43
02-18-2013, 20:16
Still has to pass the Senate if I am correct?
Yes, and it also requires a signature from Hickenpooper.
When will this officially become law?
Assuming it passes the Senate, July 1 2013 is the date in the law.
schapman43
02-18-2013, 20:17
Depends on if it passes the senate and is signed by the governor.
If you read the bill it says...
HB 13-1224 (http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_ren.pdf)
Uh, WTF, is that the most recent bill? That says 10 rounds.
I need to change my goofy Zombie quote below to "At least I was ready until the laws passed"
If CO does pass this through the Senate imagine what REALLY strict states will do??? No branches longer than 18" to swat back with??????
schapman43
02-18-2013, 20:19
Uh, WTF, is that the most recent bill? That says 10 rounds.
Never mind, says 15 further down
Thanks, I just wasnt sure. This is dumb I must say.
Sharpienads
02-18-2013, 20:31
Never mind, says 15 further down
Yeah, the synopsis in the beginning hasn't changed from the first draft.
Thanks, I just wasnt sure. This is dumb I must say.
Very dumb indeed.
HoneyBadger
02-18-2013, 21:09
They also just posted on other forums that they will begin producing Pmags w/o dates WELL before they become illegal. This way, moving forward, if you have Pmags w/o dates they will have no way to prove you acquired them after the date. Just learn this line: 'I've had those mags since before they were deemed unfit to own and illegal by my dbag representatives'
Also, there is no legal requirement that Magpul stamp the date anywhere on any of their products, correct? They should totally stamp June 2013 on the next million mags that they produce.
Also, there is no legal requirement that Magpul stamp the date anywhere on any of their products, correct? They should totally stamp June 2013 on the next million mags that they produce.
You know how I know you didn't read the last few posts of this thread before posting? ;-)
Also, there is no legal requirement that Magpul stamp the date anywhere on any of their products, correct? They should totally stamp June 2013 on the next million mags that they produce.
If they continue to manufacture in Colorado, there is a requirement. But, if people keep saying this stuff, and Magpul does move, remember, this hasn't passed the senate committee yet, and people read these forums.
The last thing we need is a Senate amendment stopping just this. "Don't give them any ideas."
Though at this point it's been said so much I expect to see the 'burden of proof' line struck in the senate, or amended to be on the posessor.
This is unlikely to get better before passage. It could get worse.
Remember, these folks are absolutely convinced that we're evil people, and that we all want to shoot children but it's just these danged bans and laws stopping us from doing so. I'm sure Fields would have us all rounded up and charged with first degree felonies based on previous posession if she had her druthers. Fortunately for us, ex post facto seems to still be in effect, for now at least.
HoneyBadger
02-18-2013, 22:05
If they continue to manufacture in Colorado, there is a requirement. But, if people keep saying this stuff, and Magpul does move, remember, this hasn't passed the senate committee yet, and people read these forums.
The last thing we need is a Senate amendment stopping just this. "Don't give them any ideas."
Though at this point it's been said so much I expect to see the 'burden of proof' line struck in the senate, or amended to be on the posessor.
This is unlikely to get better before passage. It could get worse.
Remember, these folks are absolutely convinced that we're evil people, and that we all want to shoot children but it's just these danged bans and laws stopping us from doing so. I'm sure Fields would have us all rounded up and charged with first degree felonies based on previous posession if she had her druthers. Fortunately for us, ex post facto seems to still be in effect, for now at least.
Okay I'll stop trying to think of ways to fight this unconstitutional bill should it become a law. You win.
Jackrabbit
02-18-2013, 22:11
"Hey boy, what's the date on that assault clip?"
"Go fuck yourself."
Maybe next time Magpul will pay closer attention to its political donations
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013...ell-elsewhere/ (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/)
2/18 UPDATE 2: According to OpenSecrets.com, Magpul CEO Richard Fitzpatrick has made only one political donation to a Colorado politician: $500 to Senator Mark Udall in September 2012. Wonder if he’ll be seeking a refund?
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Magpul-CEO-donation.png (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/magpul-ceo-donation/)
HoneyBadger
02-18-2013, 22:14
Maybe next time Magpul will pay closer attention to its political donations
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013...ell-elsewhere/ (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/)
2/18 UPDATE 2: According to OpenSecrets.com, Magpul CEO Richard Fitzpatrick has made only one political donation to a Colorado politician: $500 to Senator Mark Udall in September 2012. Wonder if he’ll be seeking a refund?
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Magpul-CEO-donation.png (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/magpul-ceo-donation/)
Didn't help I guess..
kidicarus13
02-18-2013, 23:09
They also just posted on other forums that they will begin producing Pmags w/o dates WELL before they become illegal. This way, moving forward, if you have Pmags w/o dates they will have no way to prove you acquired them after the date.
Fact or rumor?
But Jim, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it? It's about the children..
ban swimming pools, they kill 1000 kids a year...and what about abortion...does that kill more kids in one hour then guns do in a year?
21893
Fact or rumor?
Fact. Saw with my own eyes. The person's name who posted it rhymes with Duane Liptak Jr. [Beer]
They don't think we are evil. They just want to ban guns so its easier to control someone. There is less risk of fighting back if they have no way to defend themselves if you have all the guns.
ghettoblaster
02-19-2013, 08:11
Maybe next time Magpul will pay closer attention to its political donations
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013...ell-elsewhere/ (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/)
2/18 UPDATE 2: According to OpenSecrets.com, Magpul CEO Richard Fitzpatrick has made only one political donation to a Colorado politician: $500 to Senator Mark Udall in September 2012. Wonder if he’ll be seeking a refund?
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Magpul-CEO-donation.png (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/magpul-ceo-donation/)
Oops. Epic fail anyone?
DavieD55
02-19-2013, 11:42
The state of WY needs a tourism slogan such as one of these.
"Worth A Visit and some Magazines, for A Lifetime".
"Welcome to Wyoming, home of the 30 round Magazine".
"Land of the 30 round Magazines".
"The 30 round Magazine state"
Magpul explained the above donation.
The donation was made as a "$500 a visitor minimum" to have a face-to-face dinner with Mark Udall.
Richard did this so that he could explain his case, and the company's, face-to-face, to Mark Udall upon election. It was not a show of support. It was a minimum required donation to get MagPul infront of Mark Udall, to introduce the company to him.
Okay I'll stop trying to think of ways to fight this unconstitutional bill should it become a law. You win.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying just don't give them any ideas, out in the open on this forum, as far as ways the law could be circumvented -- while they still have the opportunity to amend it. Think about it all you want, talk to folks about it in private; but the last thing we need right now are for them to pack this full of more amendments in committee on Friday, because one of their aides "saw on the internet" that "this is what some guys are gonna try to do to get around it".
If it passes the senate, then have at. The Judiciary comittee is 3-2 D-R, and the D's are even more zealous anti-gun guys than the House comittee. Ulibarri on the comittee thinks that people can "stab attackers with ballpoint pens while they're reloading", and feels like he can be some McGyver action-hero thanks to a mag limit.
If word gets out that MagPul and shooters are figuring out a way around the law, these guys are going to tighten it like a noose.
schapman43
02-19-2013, 13:19
When is the senate supposed to vote?
When is the senate supposed to vote?
Sounds like they're trying to railroad it to as soon as tomorrow to not give people time to prepare speeches against it.
*this is my surprised face* :- l
R2Chief2
02-19-2013, 14:08
Maybe next time Magpul will pay closer attention to its political donations
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013...ell-elsewhere/ (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/)
2/18 UPDATE 2: According to OpenSecrets.com, Magpul CEO Richard Fitzpatrick has made only one political donation to a Colorado politician: $500 to Senator Mark Udall in September 2012. Wonder if he’ll be seeking a refund?
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Magpul-CEO-donation.png (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/02/15/repugnant-obtuseness-dems-denigrate-magazine-manufacturer-magpul-ask-them-to-stay-but-sell-elsewhere/magpul-ceo-donation/)
My reply back from Udall indicated to me that he would not support attacks on the second amendment.
I'll wait to see his vote on these bills before I give him a hard time. When does the Senate vote?
mikedubs
02-19-2013, 14:14
My reply back from Udall indicated to me that he would not support attacks on the second amendment.
I'll wait to see his vote on these bills before I give him a hard time. When does the Senate vote?
Mark Udall is one of Colorado's national Senators, as in DC. The State Senate is debating these bills by Friday.
R2Chief2
02-19-2013, 19:05
Mark Udall is one of Colorado's national Senators, as in DC. The State Senate is debating these bills by Friday.
There's the Feinstein stuff too which he will vote on. I'm still going to reserve judgement on him until I see where he truly stands.
losttrail
02-20-2013, 10:55
There's the Feinstein stuff too which he will vote on. I'm still going to reserve judgement on him until I see where he truly stands.
Based upon the replies I have received from both Udall & Bennet, I can say with 99.9999999% certainty that they both stand with Feinstein, Lenin, Stalin, Musollini, Marx, Pol Pot, Mao, Obama and all the other tyrants that want to control every aspect of their "subjects" lives.
newracer
02-20-2013, 11:06
I received a response from Udall, he will vote for the ban.
carnplanenut
02-20-2013, 12:43
Uunfortunately, I believe we are screwed with our current Senators voting with Feinstein and Obama, We need to vote them out of office and get new Seanators who remember their constituents.
Jason
There's still an (R) majority in the US Senate. An AWB passing nationally is much less of a worry right now unless a bunch of republicans defect. Biggest thing right now is the state senate.
DavieD55
02-20-2013, 14:08
There's still an (R) majority in the US Senate. An AWB passing nationally is much less of a worry right now unless a bunch of republicans defect. Biggest thing right now is the state senate.
The US Senate has a minority of Rs, the US House has a majority of Rs.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-20-2013, 16:00
The NRA will have a long list of races to work on. Canditates and office holders have beenable to get high NRA ratings since they haven't had to vote on gun issues recently and have been able to just say that they were pro-gun.
Time to go hunting, bag limit unlimited.
Madeinhb
02-20-2013, 17:52
And this is how liberty dies. With a thunderous applause.
iquack08
02-21-2013, 19:42
I heard Hickenlooper sounded a little hesitant about this bill during the panel discussion last night. Any truth to this?
tmleadr03
02-21-2013, 20:23
I heard Hickenlooper sounded a little hesitant about this bill during the panel discussion last night. Any truth to this?
Not really. He came in left leaning and left the same way. You could tell by the way he phrased the questions.
DeusExMachina
02-21-2013, 20:49
Anyone know if there's any specific wording relating to 3D printing magazines? A friend said something about it I hadn't heard.
nothing specifically for printed mags, are items about manufacturing
Specifically:
a newly manufactured mag must have a date and serial number. I'm going to assume there is other language in CO statutes about recording data about serial numbers by manufacturers.
The mag manufactured inside the state must be sent out of state or to an approved govt agency (see page 4)
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?Open&file=1224_ren.pdf
Harry_Merkin
02-23-2013, 04:36
Dear Colorado Citizens, I am a resident of Virginia but I enjoy visiting Colorado. I received a notice from NRA-ILA regarding HB 1224 that will go up for vote soon. I have written the following letter and sent it to the Senators. I am sharing it in the hope that it will help you in your communications with your elected officials. Please feel free to use any or all of the material. It is my sincere hope that you are able to defeat all gun control legislation in your state. May God bless you all.
Dear Senator,
I am writing to you today about House Bill 1224 which bans magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds. (Passed by a 34-31 vote in the House.).
Please vote against bans on magazines that are currently in common use by Colorado citizens and civilian law enforcement. The limitation on magazine capacity is a direct handicap on the right to self-defense. In searching for effective means to reduce violence, we should not repeat failed policies, especially when they infringe on the constitutional rights of the law-abiding. High-capacity semi-autos can help decent people to defend themselves.
Here is a very simple question: "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?" If you agree with this question, then how many bullets might a person reasonably need to stop one or more violent specimens of the most dangerous animal on earth? Police departments apparently believe the answer to be 13 to 17 rounds of 9 millimeter, as shown by their use of Glocks with these magazine capacities.
When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The only difference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is "reasonable" for legitimate self-defense is therefore, "Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies."
If passed, this law would force citizens to defend themselves with equipment that the civilian police force would consider inferior, otherwise why is there an exemption for Departments and Agencies or Political Subdivision of the state of Colorado? The tools that civilian police departments use to defend themselves clearly demonstrate the ‘common use’ test described in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174. Per the SCOTUS decision, it does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Many firearms come from the factory with devices that feed between 15 and 30 rounds — some hold more, some less depending on their configuration and purpose. Clearly given the high number of magazines with more than a 15 round capacity in the United States, we can safely say that these attachments are in ‘common use’ by law abiding citizens and civilian police departments everywhere.
This law will not have any impact on violent crime and unnecessarily restricts law abiding citizen’s 2nd Amendment Rights. I strongly urge you to vote against this bill.
Sincerely,
Contact the following Senators:
Senator Angela Giron (D-5)
Phone: 303-866-4878
Email: angela.giron.senate@state.co.us
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenGiron
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenGiron
Senator John Morse (D-11)
Phone: 303-866-6364
Email: john.morse.senate@state.co.us
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatePresidentMorse
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenJohnMorse
Senator Cheri Jahn (D-20)
Phone: 303-866-4856
Email: cheri.jahn.senate@state.co.us
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cheri.jahn
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CheriJahn
Senator Gail Schwartz (D- 5)
Phone: 303-866-4871
Email: gail.schwartz.senate@gmail.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gail-Schw...9942119422 (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gail-Schwartz/112259942119422)
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenGailSchwartz
Senator Andy Kerr (D-22)
Phone: 303-866-4859
Email: andy.kerr.senate@state.co.us
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Andy-Kerr/51257823489
Senator Jeanne Nicholson (D- 16)
Phone: 303-866-4873
Email: jeanne.nicholson.senate@state.co.us
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SenatorNicholson
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SenNicholson
Madeinhb
02-23-2013, 08:15
We need to keep sending to Hickenlpooper
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/colorado-governor-isnt-sold-on-magazine-capacity-limit-after-huge-public-fallout/
Harry_Merkin,
Thanks for joining the fight.
hammer03
02-23-2013, 21:26
Great post (and hilarious name)
Don't believe for one instant that Hick or any of the other Dems are wavering on any of these Bills. We need to keep up the PRESSURE!
NightCat
02-26-2013, 14:18
I don't want to make another thread while this one already exists, so here is my question I'm hoping somebody can answer...
To my knowledge, there is no date or mans. date markings on my Glock magazines, My G19 currently has a 15rnd magazine.
My question here is, If I ever to get a Glock OE +2 extension, or Taylor Freelance extension, would I be in immediate violation of 1224 if it were to pass? or due to the lack of a date stamp on the magazine is there no way to know if I had changed my base plate prior to the ban?
my M&P I could care less about, it'll already be illegal at 17+1...I'm just going to make it Extra illegal can get a TF 170mm for it.... 17 + 10 + 1 :D
Why....because I fucking can.
The ban is basically unenforceable anyway. Not that LEOs will be in any way restrained from making your life a living hell if they choose to do so, but the burden of proof will lie with the prosecution. Technically, you would probably be in violation, but proving it would be a whole 'nother thing.
Roger Ronas
02-26-2013, 14:26
If the ban goes into effect the way it is written as of right now, any mags that you have prior to the date the ban goes into effect you'd be legal owning. The burden to prove when you got the mag is supposed to be on prosecutor. If you want to make it easy to prove, keep your receipts when you purchase mags.
I say Fuck the prosecutor, it is my right to disobey any law I feel is unjust, going against the Constitution is unjust.
HTH
Roger
I don't want to make another thread while this one already exists, so here is my question I'm hoping somebody can answer...
To my knowledge, there is no date or mans. date markings on my Glock magazines, My G19 currently has a 15rnd magazine.
My question here is, If I ever to get a Glock OE +2 extension, or Taylor Freelance extension, would I be in immediate violation of 1224 if it were to pass? or due to the lack of a date stamp on the magazine is there no way to know if I had changed my base plate prior to the ban?
my M&P I could care less about, it'll already be illegal at 17+1...I'm just going to make it Extra illegal can get a TF 170mm for it.... 17 + 10 + 1 :D
Why....because I fucking can.
NightCat
02-26-2013, 14:47
Well my glock magazine as it sits would be perfectly legal because it is on the proposed legal limit of a 15rnd magazine, but what I'm saying is, would I be in direct violation of the law if I were to extend my magazine +2 with an OEM Glock base plate? or with a TaylorFreelance base plate?
Could easily make my 15+1 mag a 17+1 by using Factory Glock parts. and Glock DID/DOES Sell extended mags for their guns..
http://www.glockstore.com/glock-factory-magazines/glock-mag-ext-2-9-40-357
Well my glock magazine as it sits would be perfectly legal because it is on the proposed legal limit of a 15rnd magazine, but what I'm saying is, would I be in direct violation of the law if I were to extend my magazine +2 with an OEM Glock base plate? or with a TaylorFreelance base plate?
Could easily make my 15+1 mag a 17+1 by using Factory Glock parts. and Glock DID/DOES Sell extended mags for their guns..
http://www.glockstore.com/glock-factory-magazines/glock-mag-ext-2-9-40-357
you'll probably have to wait for the lawsuit on that one. There is "readily converted" language in the bill though.
newracer
02-26-2013, 15:11
Well my glock magazine as it sits would be perfectly legal because it is on the proposed legal limit of a 15rnd magazine, but what I'm saying is, would I be in direct violation of the law if I were to extend my magazine +2 with an OEM Glock base plate? or with a TaylorFreelance base plate?
Could easily make my 15+1 mag a 17+1 by using Factory Glock parts. and Glock DID/DOES Sell extended mags for their guns..
http://www.glockstore.com/glock-factory-magazines/glock-mag-ext-2-9-40-357
How would anyone know when you converted it?
kidicarus13
02-26-2013, 16:16
How would anyone know when you converted it?
Of course all conversions were completed before 07/01/13 [Beer]
Anyone had a strange desire to buy a 100-round drum for an AR and a drum mag for a 1991, when this law came up?
Goodburbon
02-26-2013, 16:34
Anyone had a strange desire to buy a 100-round drum for an AR and a drum mag for a 1991, when this law came up?
Yep...
NightCat
02-26-2013, 17:40
How would anyone know when you converted it?
This is basically my point....
SenHolbert
03-01-2013, 23:54
Holbert was almost in tears. Great guy, his constituents should be very proud.
Thanks, TS12000. That was a rough day.
- Chris
Thanks, TS12000. That was a rough day.
- Chris
Thanks Mr. Holbert for standing up for our rights, and fighting for what you believe in. We will keep fighting until the bitter end. It's not over yet.
Question on HB-1224, which I just read.
1) Limit for handguns and rifles is 15, anything more than that is prohibited, right?
2) Shotguns are limited to 8 rounds, and anything that is not permanently limited (like a plug) is banned?
My Sig Sauer P226 takes 16 round mags, and I just got a mec-gar 18 round magazine that is basically flush with the mag well. Too bad I won't be able to get those anymore. The Mec-Gar is better built and handles better than the factory mags.
Cujo0920
03-07-2013, 15:39
http://www.guns.com/2013/03/07/co-rep-pushing-for-gun-control-is-ex-con/
This is hardly surprising, but Colorado Rep. Rhonda Fields, who has sponsored four gun control bills that would ban magazines with capacities greater than 15, mandate background checks for private sales, tax gun ownership and ban concealed-carry on campus, has quite a criminal background herself, with multiple arrests for larceny and other offenses.
http://www.guns.com/2013/03/07/co-rep-pushing-for-gun-control-is-ex-con/
This is hardly surprising, but Colorado Rep. Rhonda Fields, who has sponsored four gun control bills that would ban magazines with capacities greater than 15, mandate background checks for private sales, tax gun ownership and ban concealed-carry on campus, has quite a criminal background herself, with multiple arrests for larceny and other offenses.
here is a link to a 23 page and counting discussion on it.
http://www.ar-15.co/threads/92865-Rhonda-Fields-Arrest-Record
Come and Take It
03-07-2013, 19:26
Can anyone explain to me how what these politicians are doing is NOT illegal/treason? Especially when these reps are pocketing money from the mayor of New York?
If we could get enough poeple to organize a Mass Citizens Arrest, and if we could somehow get the Sheriffs of each democrats district to help, who would be interested? Im throwing this out as a last resort. This is the first step in the complete destruction of the second amendment. If we let these pass without action/consequences for those comminting treason, there's no going back, easily. I would like for this to happen as peacefully as possible, so large numbers would be KEY. We could even start with Hickenlooper if he does not veto these bills. If anyone knows a REAL constitutional lawyer to aid in the legal process that would be even better. I know some of you may think this idea may seem waaay out of the question, but when you think about it, is it really? What would our forefathers do?
I know if Colorado residents dont do something about this, im moving to a state that passes bills to PROTECT the second amendment, not dismantle it.
Welcome to Colofornia
muddywings
03-08-2013, 11:34
Thanks, TS12000. That was a rough day.
- Chris
Thanks for being a member here and your stance. Greatly appreciated!
break break
Does anybody know where we stand with the possible vote? How are the fence sitters doing?
As far as I know, the only concrete possibilities are Jahn and Tochtrop still. I haven't heard of any specific other fence sitters on 1224 -- which sucks; this is the one I'm watching, too. I believe hopes swing on Todd, Nicholson, Giron or Kerr; but they haven't said word one about 1224 specifically.
Magpul says it's all down to Giron.
http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/clip-firm-giron-key-to-ammo-limits/article_30e01b3e-86ee-11e2-a4ce-0019bb2963f4.html?mode=jqm
Others say it's Giron, Newell and Jones.
muddywings
03-08-2013, 13:08
I think Giron is a solid yes vote on this crap.
<<<no faith!
eddiemed
03-10-2013, 08:27
disgusted!
When I die don't let a politician use my death as a stepping stone for any of their laws that can't be passed on their own. Where its a violent death or I die of old age I don't think that a law against everyone but themselves would have prevented my death or any others for that matter. I am torn up inside because those people died for nothing and are being used to take freedom away from everybody. I don't know how you get it back either once its gone. The only thing we can do is what we are doing now and that is preventing it from happening in first place. Our eyes are open to the fact that gun control sounds good if you are a fool but it doesn't work. Its been shown many times that its a failure and the people that think otherwise are fools and are being used like little whores. But if that is all they want to be there isn't a need for them in office there is plenty of space on Colfax for people willing to do whatever for money or ideals.
Here is the email I am sending today. Focus is on The Rule of Law.
Greetings!
This message is to urge you to vote NO on upcoming HB 13-1224 pertaining to Magazine Capacity Limits. What follows is the basis for my position.
When you and your colleagues in the Colorado Statehouse took your oaths of office, you made a commitment to subscribe to the Rule of Law by upholding our Constitution. The Rule of Law which is often used as the basis for referencing the US as a Nation of Laws, is designed to insure that in this country we place laws above men. That is, in a democratic society the laws passed by the members of that society are superior to the vagaries of individual leaders driven by the frailties of human emotion. The same Rule of Law protects a democratic society from despotic or tyrannical rulers who operate, and legislate, on the basis of personal desire and whim.
This country, long ago, commemorated a fundamental LAW into the Bill of Rights in the form of the Second Amendment. This law is superior to ANY - I repeat *ANY* - action to undermine or infringe on that law arising from an individual *OR COLLECTIVE* whimsical initiative - particularly one driven by human emotion, no matter how heart-rending or well-intentioned that initiative.
Watching closely the proceedings in the statehouse the past several weeks on various gun control initiatives has been both enlightening and disappointing. The Democratic members of the statehouse resonate with emotional testimony while seemingly ignoring facts and statistics. This is counter to the Rule of Law and those principles YOU took an oath to uphold.
I expect you to uphold your oath of office. I expect you to uphold the Rule of Law necessary for a free democratic society.
I expect you to vote NO on HB 13-1224.
Thanks for being a member here and your stance. Greatly appreciated!
break break
Does anybody know where we stand with the possible vote? How are the fence sitters doing?
Still need one more.
Did my final lot of letters tonight.
-Wrote Tochtrop and Jahn to thank them, and mention how great it would be if one other senator saw their way of thinking.
-Wrote Todd (even though a longshot), Giron, Schwartz, Kerr, Newell, Jones and Kefalas, for one last attempt.
Figured this would be a prime time, "after dinner but before monday", of getting them read.
It's pretty much our last chance.
If you're even considering, put in your one last push right now.
I wrote Todd, but I doubt it will have any impact. This thing will pass; we need to start the next fight, the election fight. ANYONE who votes YES for these bills needs to be shown to the people as enemies to the Constitution and traitors to the oath they took and voted out of office.
Did you all see this?
http://www.redstate.com/kforti/2013/03/07/breaking-colorado-rep-rhonda-fields-rap-sheet-longer-than-previously-reported/
It says that Rhonda Fields......the women who started the process of UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking our STANDARD magazines from us....is a criminal. She plead guilty to writing bad checks in Ft. Collins in 1998. There is some other traffic infractions but we all have had those. I am talking about the bad checks. Maybe this is old news but I find interesting that a CRIMINAL is making legislation that will ONLY effect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
We need to exploit this and mobilize against these people.
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 22:15
Yeah, that's old news. There's a great thread about it here: http://www.ar-15.co/threads/92865-Rhonda-Fields-Arrest-Record
http://s10.postimage.org/b0mf346mh/Fields.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-11-2013, 07:19
I wrote Todd, but I doubt it will have any impact. This thing will pass; we need to start the next fight, the election fight. ANYONE who votes YES for these bills needs to be shown to the people as enemies to the Constitution and traitors to the oath they took and voted out of office.
Did you all see this?
http://www.redstate.com/kforti/2013/03/07/breaking-colorado-rep-rhonda-fields-rap-sheet-longer-than-previously-reported/
It says that Rhonda Fields......the women who started the process of UNCONSTITUTIONALLY taking our STANDARD magazines from us....is a criminal. She plead guilty to writing bad checks in Ft. Collins in 1998. There is some other traffic infractions but we all have had those. I am talking about the bad checks. Maybe this is old news but I find interesting that a CRIMINAL is making legislation that will ONLY effect LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.
We need to exploit this and mobilize against these people.
Write bad checks all over the place and they slap your wrists. Print money and spend it all over the place and the whole weight of the federal govt wil come down on top of you.
There is a special place in hell for Rep Fields, right next to the killer of her son.....
dodgefreak8
03-11-2013, 17:37
and it's done.... unbelievable...
BuffCyclist
03-11-2013, 17:50
and it's done.... unbelievable...
According to: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22765004/colorado-gun-bill-senate-vote-limit-ammunition-magazines
It hasn't passed. It merely passed the Senate and heads back to the House to be approved again due to being amended.
The measure now heads back to the House for a vote because it was amended in the Senate
Regardless, I still feel absolutely horrible for everyone up in Colorado! I can't believe that Colorado of all states would be passing such a bill. Let the [panic] on magazines resume up there. :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.