View Full Version : HB 13-1224: CO Magazine Capacity Limit (15-Round) Bill Thread
and it's done.... unbelievable...
It was amended by the Senate, so back to the House. Here are the amendments:
(2) (a) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE MEANS:11 (I) A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX, DRUM, FEED STRIP,12 OR SIMILAR DEVICE CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE
13 READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF
14 AMMUNITION;15 (II) A FIXED, TUBULAR SHOTGUN MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS MORE
16 THAN TWENTY-EIGHT INCHES OF SHOTGUN SHELLS, INCLUDING ANY
-2- 1224
EXTENSION DEVICE THAT 1 IS ATTACHED TO THE MAGAZINE AND HOLDS
2 ADDITIONAL SHOTGUN SHELLS; OR
3 (III) A NONTUBULAR, DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX, DRUM, FEED
4 STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING MORE THAN5 EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS WHEN COMBINED WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE.
BuffCyclist
03-11-2013, 17:56
It was amended by the Senate, so back to the House. Here are the amendments:
(2) (a) "L
ARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE MEANS:11 (I) A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX, DRUM, FEED STRIP,12 OR SIMILAR DEVICE CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE
13
READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF
14
AMMUNITION;15 (II) A FIXED, TUBULAR SHOTGUN MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS MORE
16
THAN TWENTY-EIGHT INCHES OF SHOTGUN SHELLS, INCLUDING ANY
-2- 1224
EXTENSION DEVICE THAT
1 IS ATTACHED TO THE MAGAZINE AND HOLDS
2
ADDITIONAL SHOTGUN SHELLS; OR
3 (III) A
NONTUBULAR, DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX, DRUM, FEED
4
STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING MORE THAN
5 EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS WHEN COMBINED WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE.
Wait, so this part means you can only have 8x 3.5" shells or 11.2x 2.5" shells? Thats freaking ridiculous! How can they apply THAT logic to shotgun shells, yet not pistol/rifle ammo?
In that, a rifle can hold a max of 45" of ammo (lots of .223, verylittle .308, even less .50bmg) or 30" of pistol ammo (tons of .380acp, less 9mm, even less .38spl). Good Lord, these people truly are idiots, but the lengths that they go to ban any and all is ridiculous!
Punkface
03-11-2013, 18:00
So if my understanding is correct, the house has to vote on it again and if it passes the vote then dickenfucker will sign it and make it law?
So if my understanding is correct, the house has to vote on it again and if it passes the vote then dickenfucker will sign it and make it law?
I think that is correct.
not understand, another pass? i understand that the only remaining step is the governor sign. Please confirm because i have 3 remaining xanax in the bottle yet
Got get some more of those XXXXXX I'll wait to say this. [dig]
not understand, another pass? i understand that the only remaining step is the governor sign. Please confirm because i have 3 remaining xanax in the bottle yet
The Senate amended it, so the House has to approve the revised bill.
The Senate amended it, so the House has to approve the revised bill.
and after ammend it they need to vote again? and what is the vote of 18 vs 17?
my god this process killing me
and after ammend it they need to vote again? and what is the vote of 18 vs 17?
my god this process killing me
18 to 17 was the Senate vote. The text I posted in #506 was a Senate amendment. So the Senate passed a bill the House did not. The house can vote on it as amended or send it back to committee. I don't know if the CO Legislature has joint committees or not. Once both the House and Senate pass the SAME bill, then it goes to the Governor.
Right. The house has to pass it 34-31 again. (yeah. some cynicism.)
newracer
03-11-2013, 18:29
Now we need to start hammering the house again. Tell them they now have a chance to correct the wrong they did.
BuffCyclist
03-11-2013, 18:32
Right. The house has to pass it 34-31 again. (yeah. some cynicism.)
No, do the following below:
Now we need to start hammering the house again. Tell them they now have a chance to correct the wrong they did.
Its possible that some of the original nay'ers will reconsider their vote given how hot this topic has been. Or, they'll look at job security and hopefully come to the realization that they'll be elected OUT OF OFFICE if they vote for the bill and it passes.
No. Buff and Newracer are right... Just had a 'eff it' moment. IF it's going back to the house, we need to go back to the house, no matter how futile it seems. I said I'd keep fighting it so I will.
BuffCyclist
03-11-2013, 19:02
No. Buff and Newracer are right... Just had a 'eff it' moment. IF it's going back to the house, we need to go back to the house, no matter how futile it seems. I said I'd keep fighting it so I will.
Yes, everyone is getting exhausted from contacting their reps, I know I was when contacting the reps down here in New Mexico, but our bills were basically permanently tabled, which is worse than being shot down in my opinion.
Optimism is low but you can't give up hope, keep hitting them hard sending emails everyday if possible! Hopefully it'll just take a few people to see that this is such a hot topic, their career might be at stake come reelection time.
keylay31
03-11-2013, 19:03
How's this for pessimism: At the very least, we need to get them to allow for temporary transfer...
So since temporary transfer isn't allowed at this point, if you're at the range and a cop picks up the mag on the bench to inspect it, he cant give it back? You're just S.O.L?
NightCat
03-11-2013, 19:33
...imma buy some mag extensions for my G19 just because of this..
So if it goes through to the governor and he signs it, does anyone know how long before it goes into effect? I heard July, but not sure if that is correct.
i dont really feel like reading 53 pages
can we buy/sell/trade high cap mags and drums till july ?
BuffCyclist
03-11-2013, 20:22
So if it goes through to the governor and he signs it, does anyone know how long before it goes into effect? I heard July, but not sure if that is correct.
The bill states July 1, 2013.
What about belt fed guns, how are they going to look at those?
BuffCyclist
03-11-2013, 20:33
What about belt fed guns, how are they going to look at those?
I doubt they're aware of belt fed guns (i haven't seen any mention of them yet), so don't bring it up again lol
I doubt they're aware of belt fed guns (i haven't seen any mention of them yet), so don't bring it up again lol
Well I don't have any. I just thought about replacing the ones I lost in the boating accident.
What about belt fed guns, how are they going to look at those?
belts are specifically in the bill. of course links can be readily converted to any count... luckily links dont have date stamps.
I'll be emailing the house members daily. Anybody have an idea when this is supposed to go back to them?
husky390
03-11-2013, 20:49
New round of letters sent to the bastards, again.
Rucker61
03-11-2013, 22:18
Who are the reasonable ones? Fischer just emailed me that he's supporting 1224, without giving the rationale I asked for.
husky390
03-11-2013, 22:29
It was reported in the Post that McLachlan is having second thoughts on the mag cap bill.
Gee.....wonder what caused him to rethink his position???
Boba Fett
03-11-2013, 22:40
What's this business about date stamps? You won't be able to purchase/ possess magazines manufactured after a certain date? Sorry just catching up.
Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2
i dont really feel like reading 53 pages
can we buy/sell/trade high cap mags and drums till july ?
Settings
My Settings
My Account
General settings
Thread Display Options
Number of Posts to Show Per Page
Show 40 Posts Per Page
Then you only have to read 14 pages. [Luck]
What's this business about date stamps? You won't be able to purchase/ possess magazines manufactured after a certain date? Sorry just catching up.
Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2
You should be sorry. Fair weather 'gun enthusiasts' like yourself are why we're in this situation to begin with. Shit is over and NOW you care enough to ask?
newracer
03-11-2013, 23:22
It is not over, contact the house democrats.
randyfischer@frii.com, Kathleen.conti.house@state.co.us, lois.court.house@state.co.us, crisanta.duran.house@state.co.us, Thomas.exum.house@state.co.us, mferrandino@yahoo.com,Rhonda.fields.house@state.co .us, mike.foote.house@state.co.us, Leroy.garcia.house@state.co.us, millie.hamner.house@state.co.us,dl.hullinghorst.ho use@state.co.us, repkagan@gmail.com, reptracy29@gmail.com, Jeanne.labuda.house@state.co.us,Steve.lebsock.hous e@state.co.us, pete.lee.house@state.co.us, Claire.levy.house@state.co.us, jenise.may.house@state.co.us, beth.mccann.house@state.co.us,mike.mclachlan.house @state.co.us, Jovan.melton.house@state.co.us, diane.mitschbush.house@state.co.us, Dominick.moreno.house@state.co.us, dan.pabon.house@state.co.us,cherylin.peniston.hous e@state.co.us, Brittany.pettersen.house@state.co.us, Dianne.primavera.house@state.co.us, Paul.rosenthal.house@state.co.us, su.ryden.house@state.co.us,Joseph.salazar.house@st ate.co.us, sue.schafer.house@state.co.us, jonathan.singer.house@state.co.us, max@maxtyler.us, edvigil1@gmail.com,angela.williams.house@state.co. us, dave.young.house@state.co.us,
I don't understand the new 28 restriction? 28 inches on a single tube for a shotgun? Seems silly. Then xrails are in. Drums could be considered in depending on wording. (Even if it's just a 15).
Does this mean things like SRM1216 (4 tubes of 4 in a cylinder), UTS12/KSG (2 tubes of 7), don't fall under it due to their uniqueness?
<p>
I don't understand the new 28 restriction? 28 inches on a single tube for a shotgun? Seems silly. Then xrails are in. Drums could be considered in depending on wording. (Even if it's just a 15). Does this mean things like SRM1216 (4 tubes of 4 in a cylinder), UTS12/KSG (2 tubes of 7), don't fall under it due to their uniqueness? If im not mistake they set a restriction to 8 rounds for shotguns and 15 for everything else! thought i read this in the bill, but becasue like everyone has said it is extreamly poorly writen i hope this gets shot down, but im not holding by breath still emailing and calling and doing as much as i can.</p>
<p>
If im not mistake they set a restriction to 8 rounds for shotguns and 15 for everything else! thought i read this in the bill, but becasue like everyone has said it is extreamly poorly writen i hope this gets shot down, but im not holding by breath still emailing and calling and doing as much as i can.</p>
Shotgun was amended to 28" tube. Can't speak to the other specific uniqueness consequence.
Shotgun was amended to 28" tube. Can't speak to the other specific uniqueness consequence.
gotcha, i missed that must of been an old copy.
Boba Fett
03-12-2013, 06:32
You should be sorry. Fair weather 'gun enthusiasts' like yourself are why we're in this situation to begin with. Shit is over and NOW you care enough to ask?
Listen, Jack, I just moved to this state from the East Coast where I was pretty busy defending your right to talk shit. Spent the last 18 years doing this gig, with a about a good 1/3 of that time spent away from home, while you were probably enjoying Christmas and Thanksgiving with the family, jerking off to internet porn while finger fucking yourself. In the meantime I've taken a bullet for God and country and have seen my fellow Soldiers WIA and KIA while fulfilling their oath to support and defend The Constitution, and then come home and deal with PTSD. So yeah, I'm sorry I've been busy serving my country rather than keeping up with current events here in Colorado. Sorry I'm a full-time combat Soldier and only have time to be a fair weather gun enthusiast. I'm sorry asshats like you don't take the time to consider who they're addressing before shooting off at the mouth. I'll tell you what, I'd be more than willing to meet you face to face so we can discuss this over a beer and eliminate any confusion. Come on down to Fort Carson and I'll introduce you more fair weather gun enthusiast who could use some enlightenment.
Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2
As Currently written, it is 28" of shotgun shells. That is not the tube length, the total length of the shells that can be placed in the tube magazine.
losttrail
03-12-2013, 08:09
Listen, Jack, I just moved to this state from the East Coast where I was pretty busy defending your right to talk shit. Spent the last 18 years doing this gig, with a about a good 1/3 of that time spent away from home, while you were probably enjoying Christmas and Thanksgiving with the family, jerking off to internet porn while finger fucking yourself. In the meantime I've taken a bullet for God and country and have seen my fellow Soldiers WIA and KIA while fulfilling their oath to support and defend The Constitution, and then come home and deal with PTSD. So yeah, I'm sorry I've been busy serving my country rather than keeping up with current events here in Colorado. Sorry I'm a full-time combat Soldier and only have time to be a fair weather gun enthusiast. I'm sorry asshats like you don't take the time to consider who they're addressing before shooting off at the mouth. I'll tell you what, I'd be more than willing to meet you face to face so we can discuss this over a beer and eliminate any confusion. Come on down to Fort Carson and I'll introduce you more fair weather gun enthusiast who could use some enlightenment.
Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2
Boba Fett,
As a veteran myself, thank you for your service. Been there, done that, not to your level but had to give the eulogy for my best friend that was killed 26 Feb, 1991 in Kuwait.
Please understand that we are all a bit tense here in CO due to the Marxist controlled house, senate and governor's office. These Bloomberg bought Democrats have come up with some of the most idiotic bills that do NOTHING to address crime but only restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. They have restricted the ability of the 'free' people of CO to address these bills at the capital, ignored 62 of 64 county sheriff's testimony that these are bad bills and nonenforcible but only criminalize law abiding citizens.
We have elected "representatives" that provide sanctuary to illegals, provide in-state tuition to illegals, worked out how to legalize pot in the state yet completely disregard the overwhelming majority will of the people of CO. "Representatives" and senators belittle rape victims testifying against these bills, disparage women's rights to defend themselves, then vote against the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
We are shocked by the level of distrust our elected "representitives" have for the people of CO and the depths to which they have crawled in order to further Bloomberg's anti-American agenda.
Tempers are running hot. Hopefully as you get up to speed on how Marxist this state's ruling party has become, you'll understand why Jer reacted the way he did. I'm not saying it was right or the type of welcome you should have received, just trying to give some perspective.
Thanks again for your service and welcome. Maybe we can meet up for a Guinness some time.
Jerry
Boba Fett,
As a veteran myself, thank you for your service. Been there, done that, not to your level but had to give the eulogy for my best friend that was killed 26 Feb, 1991 in Kuwait.
Please understand that we are all a bit tense here in CO due to the Marxist controlled house, senate and governor's office. These Bloomberg bought Democrats have come up with some of the most idiotic bills that do NOTHING to address crime but only restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. They have restricted the ability of the 'free' people of CO to address these bills at the capital, ignored 62 of 64 county sheriff's testimony that these are bad bills and nonenforcible but only criminalize law abiding citizens.
We have elected "representatives" that provide sanctuary to illegals, provide in-state tuition to illegals, worked out how to legalize pot in the state yet completely disregard the overwhelming majority will of the people of CO. "Representatives" and senators belittle rape victims testifying against these bills, disparage women's rights to defend themselves, then vote against the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
We are shocked by the level of distrust our elected "representitives" have for the people of CO and the depths to which they have crawled in order to further Bloomberg's anti-American agenda.
Tempers are running hot. Hopefully as you get up to speed on how Marxist this state's ruling party has become, you'll understand why Jer reacted the way he did. I'm not saying it was right or the type of welcome you should have received, just trying to give some perspective.
Thanks again for your service and welcome. Maybe we can meet up for a Guinness some time.
Jerry
I am also a veteran. Boba Fett is spot on and the bull over attacking people because of party affiliation, not 'gun enough' or any other reason people seem to think it is ok to attack somebody who is agreeing with you has to stop. That is how we stop what is going on. It does not matter what excuse they want to justify it with. We need to band together not pull each other apart. And hey, I will buy that first round Jerry[Coffee]
Boba.... Just ...... Thank you.
BTW: to answer your original question, you are correct with a little bit more to make you cringe. You will not be able transfer (even to you wife), buy, sell, manufacture for sale in CO. mags over 15rd or shotguns with over a 28 inch tube after July. Seems pretty simple till you start thinking about two things. First mags do wear out. That is what they are counting on. Second and more dubious. Many guns only come in +15 mags. A Calico is a good example and what do you do if you have sold your last AR (ya, I know, never happen). Those mags are not to be part of that sale. Humorously, the answer is you go to a next door state, abide by their rules and technically you are ok (according to discussion last Monday. I was there.) There is also the issue that many (such as Magpul) already put a date stamp on their mags as part of the normal manufacturing process. Will people obey these rules, probably not. The problem there is that they can then take all your guns and you become the criminal. This is not the way 'rule of law' is supposed to be. There are other issues but those are two that bring up the most contention.
Boba, I would suggest that you take Magpul up on their 'Magazine airlift' program. You can read about it easily on their site.
After reading this bill, I see no provision for temporary transfer of pre-ban mags. It specifically bans transfers and states they must remain in my possession at all times. So if we are at the range and I let my kid shoot one my ARs with a 30 round mag, am I a criminal? Am I seriously going to be forced to buy 10 round mags just so I can enjoy range time with my family?
Popular opinion has been yes. This specific example was discussed by the Senators during the "debate".
Another question, if we are shooting USPSA and I pick up your high capacity mags for you have I committed a crime?
Popular opinion has been yes. This specific example was discussed by the Senators during the "debate".
Another question, if we are shooting USPSA and I pick up your high capacity mags for you have I committed a crime?
I missed that part of the proceedings. UnF'ing believable.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if all the DA's refused to use these laws to prosecute anyone? And, if they did, juries would nullify the charges?
A man has to have his dreams...
husky390
03-12-2013, 16:11
Wouldn't it be hilarious if all the DA's refused to use these laws to prosecute anyone? And, if they did, juries would nullify the charges?
A man has to have his dreams...
Now that's a jury I'd look forward to being on.
No joke!
Unjust laws compel good people to break them.
losttrail
03-13-2013, 08:30
New batch of emails sent to reps this morning.
Is the House voting on the amended bills today?
Rucker61
03-13-2013, 11:40
Plan on sending this out today:
(note: the '10' figure is lined through for emphasis in my Word .doc that didn't paste through here.)
HB 13-1224
The stated purpose for this bill as enacted is “The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety”
The sponsor of the bill has stated that she expects that future mass attackers will be competent users of the weapon systems, as she stated that current and past military members, presumably familiar and competent in the use of weapons with magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity, are far too likely to suffer from disqualifying mental illness to be trusted to have an exemption from the magazine capacity restriction. They can only be a risk if the current mental health and background check systems are unlikely to deny them access to a firearm capable of using magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity
The stated goal in testimony by supporters is that in reducing the number of rounds in a magazine to 10 15 is to allow time for potential victims to subdue the attacker, in the hope that said subduer is sufficiently aware of the attacker’s actions to recognize a reloading pause, that he/she is sufficiently fleet of foot, that he/she is of sufficient physical capability and that he/she is of sufficiently heroic bent to willing expose him or herself to fire. It also assumes that the subduer will be unarmed, as nearly all such mass attacks occur in a gun free zone, and the assembly has made no efforts to deny access of a determined attacker to said gun free zones or reduce the numbers of gun free zones. Given that future attackers have a high probability of being competent users, the time window for a success subdual would be much shorter than in past attacks. This scenario also presumes that the attacker doesn’t already possess their own inventory of magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity, as grandfathered in this bill, that he or she didn’t purchase magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity on the black market, that he or she didn’t travel to states that neighbor Colorado to legally purchase magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity or that he or she didn’t manufacture or easily convert magazines of less than 10 15 rounds to hold 16 or more rounds. This scenario also assumes that there is at least a one to one ratio of heroic subduers to attackers. It also counts heavily on the potential heroic subduer, if there is one on the site of the attacks, not being one of the first 10 15 people killed.
The sponsors and supporters of this bill have repeatedly stated that the sole purpose of the use of magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity is “to kill large numbers of people in a short time”. As it appears that a magazine of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity isn’t inherently evil or dangerous in itself, as this bill authorizes manufacturers to produce such a device in this state as long as the sale is limited to, among others, departments, agencies or political subdivisions and to ordinary citizens, including active duty military and veterans, of states other than Colorado through a firearms retailer. One has to wonder then, if the sole purpose of a magazine of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity is to enable the user “to kill large numbers of people in a short time”, why the sponsors and supporters of this bill specifically reserve that ability to the various law enforcement organizations in this state (under what circumstances do the sponsors and supporters of this bill to need to kill large numbers of people in a short time), to the ordinary citizens of other states and to foreign governments and at the same time fail to explain how criminals, who buy firearms on the black market, a process not requiring a background check, and the mentally disturbed, who can easily pass the current background check system, can be prevented from acquiring the tools “to kill large numbers of people in a short time”. It is apparent that the only demographic that this bill is intended to or capable of removing the ability “to kill large numbers of people in a short time” via the use of magazines of greater than 10 15 rounds capacity is that of law abiding citizens of Colorado.
Given that the burden of proof of ownership prior to the enactment of this bill into law, as stated, “rests with the prosecution”, it is therefore implied that the owner of the magazine in question will have been arrested and entered into the judicial system, with the possibility of the magazine(s) having been confiscated by the law enforcement official. This means that it is the consequence of this bill to allow the citizen to be disarmed and presumably decreasing their safety, until such time and financial expenditure that he or she is found innocent in judicial proceedings.
In conclusion, as only stated purpose for this bill as enacted is “The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety”, and that the only demographic that will be immediately affected by this legislation are law abiding Coloradans, it is readily apparent that the sponsors and supports of this bill regard the greatest risk to public peace, health and safety to be the law-abiding citizens of the State of Colorado.
I urge your no vote on HB-13-1224
newracer
03-13-2013, 11:57
Better hurry, they are debating the bill right now.
Boadie30
03-13-2013, 11:59
WOW... This is very good... Great job!
newracer
03-13-2013, 12:11
They have accepted the senate amendments and rejected to send it to a special committee for further investigation.
They have accepted the senate amendments and rejected to send it to a special committee for further investigation.
This is my surprised face.
wctriumph
03-13-2013, 13:30
Passed and I'm going to be sick. The dems are just puppets and not for Colorado. Their self serving attitudes are apparent; screw the people and move on to better and bigger things telling lies all the way.
Not only did Nicholson vote for this, she signed on as a co-sponsor. Wow...this will really piss off the people in West Jeff and Gilpin!
Not only did Nicholson vote for this, she signed on as a co-sponsor. Wow...this will really piss off the people in West Jeff and Gilpin!
I say her head should be among the first on the Recall Chopping Block! Get that woman out of office, she claimed she didn't vote party lines, but after admitting that this bill would be near-impossible to enforce she still voted "Yea" along with just about every single D. Eff her.
That is a complete lie; Nicholson is one of the most left wing members of the General Assembly. Her votes and affiliations speak for themselves.
This district is so horribly gerrymandered. I think there should be a recall every term as a protest of how the lines were drawn. I really want to know what Denver has in common with the mountain communities. I haven’t been a state committeeman in over ten years, but I will be heavily involved now.
funkymonkey1111
03-13-2013, 14:57
john caldara on 1224
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW-DzOLKEFU
It will be interesting to see what Hippypooper does?
Either he realizes the unintended consequence and uses a veto on the bill,
or
He signs the bill and bans all box magazines which is clearly unconstitutional under Heller not to mention would sink the Democrats.
It will be interesting to see what Hippypooper does?
Either he realizes the unintended consequence and uses a veto on the bill,
or
He signs the bill and bans all box magazines which is clearly unconstitutional under Heller not to mention would sink the Democrats.
You really think option A is even possible? He's going to sign off on it and not even think twice- then smile and wave from his new appointment by Barrack. [Mad]
You really think option A is even possible? He's going to sign off on it and not even think twice- then smile and wave from his new appointment by Barrack. [Mad]
I just heard from one of the Reps that 1229 was "wounded" not sure what that means yet, and the Dems are starting to panic on their message/perception.
If Hick's attorney(s) confirms the unintended consequence, I think there is a good chance of it being vetoed.
I just heard from one of the Reps that 1229 was "wounded" not sure what that means yet, and the Dems are starting to panic on their message/perception.
If Hick's attorney(s) confirms the unintended consequence, I think there is a good chance of it being vetoed.
Either way, I hope by even proposing it that the Dems get their asses handed to them in the mid-term elections. But if Dickinpooper vetoes then I would be a very happy man!
husky390
03-13-2013, 17:34
It will be interesting to see what Hippypooper does?
He signs the bill and bans all box magazines which is clearly unconstitutional under Heller not to mention would sink the Democrats.
How would it be unconstitutional under Heller?
mdflem51
03-13-2013, 17:57
[MOD EDIT: No more talks like this on this forum]
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-13-2013, 18:12
How would it be unconstitutional under Heller?
I think one of the things in Heller is that you can't just outlaw a whole class of firearms. If it is true that any magazine with a removeable base plate is illegal, that makes semis illegal. As with anything SCOTUS it is open to interpretation.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-13-2013, 18:15
Has the house re-voted on this yet? I would think the 'readily expandable' issue would give them enough cover to vote against it and still keep Bloomberg's money.
You really think option A is even possible? He's going to sign off on it and not even think twice- then smile and wave from his new appointment by Barrack. [Mad]
[Beer]
It was over before it left committee.
"We believe in responsible gun control reform." [blah-blah]
"That is why we did not just vote yes on all the bills before us."
"...will of the people..."
I hope we are wrong.
How would it be unconstitutional under Heller?
I think he means under US v. Miller- it clearly states that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people to be armed equally to the military... From that decision: "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Well, in common use at this time, our military uses 30 round magazines, and in some cases (why can we not broaden it to special operations?) 50 round Beta Mags. YMMV, but I could see this as precedent to shut this shit down.
Cylinder Head
03-14-2013, 16:20
I think he means under US v. Miller- it clearly states that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the people to be armed equally to the military... From that decision: "The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Well, in common use at this time, our military uses 30 round magazines, and in some cases (why can we not broaden it to special operations?) 50 round Beta Mags. YMMV, but I could see this as precedent to shut this shit down.
Not to mention doesn't the Colorado State Constitution say something about weapons and components that are in common use by the army or am I mistaken?
Not to mention doesn't the Colorado State Constitution say something about weapons and components that are in common use by the army or am I mistaken?
Colorado state constitution
ARTICLE II
Section 13.
Right to bear arms
The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Talked to a rep today. He voted against the ban on mag capacity but voted for the universal BG check. He said he just got a 34 round magazine and understands its for target practice.
twitchyfinger
03-15-2013, 02:18
True scope of gun control bill questioned. A Rhonda Fields FAIL!!!
http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=323800 (http://www.9news.com/rss/story.aspx?storyid=323800)
she does what she is told by the higher ups. And ignores her constituents. She is doing what she is suppose to.
So.........
1) I won't be able to pass my personal property on to my heirs in its factory-delivered condition (it came with detachable-baseplate magazines)
2) Gunstores won't be able to sell their existing stock of firearms with the factory-supplied magazine ("sorry sir, when we finally get legal magazines in stock next year we'll be glad to mail it to you")
3) Eventually the good guys will only have unreliable, uncleanable, jam-prone, underfilled equipment. Only the the bad-guys will get the premium-quality, factory-supplied, flawlessly-operating equipment.
4) Private party sales of modern semis will immediately turn into paperweight sales ("sorry sir, I can't include that factory magazine I've had for 20 years...")
At best, this was an ill-conceived mistake created by uninformed legislators who were oblivious to the unintended consequences of their ignorance.
At worst, this was a sneaky, deceitful attempt to put in place a vastly over-reaching trojan horse that will take years to overturn
Rucker61
03-15-2013, 09:34
she does what she is told by the higher ups. And ignores her constituents. She is doing what she is suppose to.
The only reason I would call this claim into question is that I don't believe she's smart enough to follow even simple instructions.
DeusExMachina
03-15-2013, 09:47
Came across an interesting quote today...this will be directly relevant to Colorado residents come July 1st.
"That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."
- James Madison, “Property” in the National Gazette (excerpt); March 29th, 1792.
lowbeyond
03-15-2013, 10:06
So.........
1) I won't be able to pass my personal property on to my heirs in its factory-delivered condition (it came with detachable-baseplate magazines)
2) Gunstores won't be able to sell their existing stock of firearms with the factory-supplied magazine ("sorry sir, when we finally get legal magazines in stock next year we'll be glad to mail it to you")
3) Eventually the good guys will only have unreliable, uncleanable, jam-prone, underfilled equipment. Only the the bad-guys will get the premium-quality, factory-supplied, flawlessly-operating equipment.
4) Private party sales of modern semis will immediately turn into paperweight sales ("sorry sir, I can't include that factory magazine I've had for 20 years...")
At best, this was an ill-conceived mistake created by uninformed legislators who were oblivious to the unintended consequences of their ignorance.
At worst, this was a sneaky, deceitful attempt to put in place a vastly over-reaching trojan horse that will take years to overturn
Your last sentence is the correct one. They are not oblivious they were told repeatedly. They did it anyway.
In a 9-news video interview last night she claimed this was the first she had heard of this "floorplate stuff".
However.......
If you read the latest version of the bill, this same issue was fixed for shotguns. Most shotguns are "designed" to accept a tube extender merely by the fact that the magazine plug is screwed onto the end of the magazine tube. Thus most shotguns would have been non-transferrable. They fixed it by exempting shotguns from the "design test", and imposed a restriction on the total capacity including any attached extenders.
I must agree with your assertion that this little problem was discussed at length. The question is were they just not bright enough to carry the analogy to semis, or did they do it on purpose?
newracer
03-15-2013, 11:18
It was brought up many times by many individuals in both the Senate and the House, she is lying as usual.
DeusExMachina
03-15-2013, 12:28
Willful ignorance is a powerful thing for Democrats, it seems.
Rucker61
03-15-2013, 12:34
Willful ignorance coupled with intellectual dishonesty is a powerful thing for Democrats, it seems.
FIFY
From a discussion email I received. BOLD is me highlighting.
The "dirty little secret" of HB 1224 is that the "grandfather clause" is an affirmative defense at trial. If you get caught with a magazine of over 15 rounds after the ban goes into effect on July 1, 2013, you get arrested. Law enforcement confiscates any guns in the vicinity. You lose your right to own a gun. you bond out. The authorities may confiscate all your guns, since you are now a prohibited person. You wait weeks or months for a trial. You go to trial. At the trial, the prosecutor must prove that you got the magazine after the ban. Unless there is a videotape of the sale/transfer, they let you go. Good luck on getting your guns back.
lowbeyond
03-15-2013, 13:55
yep. it has always been thus. again, i don't know why people keep hanging their hat on the prosecutor has the burden of proof line.
SigShooter
03-15-2013, 13:55
From a discussion email I received. BOLD is me highlighting.
The reference to losing your right to own a gun seems like a sizable problem to me...
I wasn't aware a class 2 misdemeanor was a "prohibited person" event.
there is a clause specifically in the BG check bill about losing 2A rights for 2 years but I dont recall anything like that in 1224
twitchyfinger
03-15-2013, 14:51
Glad to see Clark and that video are making some noise! Just goes to show, keep up the fight!!!
http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/03/15/did-kyle-clark-kill-mag-ban-3-takeaways-from-9news-debunking-of-bungled-up-mag-ban/ (http://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2013/03/15/did-kyle-clark-kill-mag-ban-3-takeaways-from-9news-debunking-of-bungled-up-mag-ban/)
FB users show him your support:
https://www.facebook.com/kyle.clark.549
yep. it has always been thus. again, i don't know why people keep hanging their hat on the prosecutor has the burden of proof line.
Yes, we'd have to provide proof that we were in possession of the magazine prior to July 1, 2013.
The reference to losing your right to own a gun seems like a sizable problem to me...
Misdemeanor DV deprives you of firearms, I've seen people fail background checks because of it.
I wasn't aware a class 2 misdemeanor was a "prohibited person" event.
there is a clause specifically in the BG check bill about losing 2A rights for 2 years but I dont recall anything like that in 1224
We must accept a basic premise about liberals, that premise is "words mean what the liberals says the word means", it has nothing to do with reality or the truth. In this case liberals will happily say a misdemeanor is grounds to disarm someone, it isn't true but liberals will make it a reality.
Unbelievable! Found a video outlining exactly the magazine-extender design issue as described in open hearing by Kevin Lundberg / Berthoud
yet they still pushed it through as is!
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/15/oops-colorado-high-capacity-mag-ban-might-ban-almost-all-mags/
The dude from MagPul even gave them a demonstration about how all their mags have removeable floorplates and that ALL their mags would be banned under this bill. Think they gave a shit? Most probably were dozing off.
I predict this will be signed by the gov. They are not ready to pull in their claws yet. They are so close they can taste it and have been waiting for years and years to pass these arbitrary feel-good laws that will NOT make anyone safer.
They want to be able to go back to their constituants and say how great they are to ban high cap mags.
But, I do believe people are starting to see what ignorant assholes these people are and it will all backfire and hopefully these fucks will be tossed out on their asses come election time.
Problem is the damage will already be done.
I guess the politicos are banking on the average moron voter's lack of long term memory when they figure out in 4-6-8-10 years that their silly ban did nothing to reduce gun deaths and only served to empower the criminal.
I'm hoping that if the governor signs 1224 a lawsuit pops up and an injunction is issued to stop this attack.
twitchyfinger
03-15-2013, 22:07
I guess the politicos are banking on the average moron voter's lack of long term memory when they figure out in 4-6-8-10 years that their silly ban did nothing to reduce gun deaths and only served to empower the criminal.
One would think that they learned that from the last ban that lasted ten years but no of course in their eyes there are many reasons why it didn't work like it was not strict enough or there where to many loopholes. Never will we get them to realize what is obvious and that criminals have no concern for their laws. Guess they would rather make us all criminals so they can prosecute offenders, confinscate our firearms and take all of our money through the legal system they have made! Makes me wonder just who the real criminals are!
As Currently written, it is 28" of shotgun shells. That is not the tube length, the total length of the shells that can be placed in the tube magazine.
So I got all my various shotguns and tubes and ammo out at the range and played with variations...
Anyway, here is what you get with 28"...
(19) Aguila minishells (only 100% reliable in Win SXP, 1300 and FNH P12)
(16) 2" shells birdshot.
(12) 2 3/4" shells birdshot. Some slugs and buckshot will only allow (11) to be under the 28", so be careful.
(10) 3" shells.
(8) 3.5" shells.
Shotshell lengths are measured as the uncrimped length of the hull, so a 70mm/2 3/4" shell loaded is 2.3 to 2.4" loaded.
SenHolbert
03-17-2013, 14:14
[QUOTE=us1911;1021175]
"In a 9-news video interview last night she claimed this was the first she had heard of this "floorplate stuff".
However..."
Yes, the issue was discussed at length in the House and Senate BEOFRE the 9News report:
Lundberg Audio: http://bit.ly/YeVWs9 (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FYeVWs9&h=YAQFfUFSe&s=1) Scroll to 10 Hrs, 21 Min, 47 Sec.
Holbert Audio: http://bit.ly/YvyHfX Scroll to 2 Hrs, 45 Min. Holbert Specifically to Handgun Mags: 2 Hrs, 49 Min, 50 Sec
Lundberg Video: http://t.co/ZiNy5qYOLa
Brophy Video: http://www.bit.ly/YcHd4m
Sorry for the less interesting audio files. The Senate staff does a great job of posting videos. We don't yet have that level of support in the House.
[QUOTE=us1911;1021175]
"In a 9-news video interview last night she claimed this was the first she had heard of this "floorplate stuff".
However..."
Yes, the issue was discussed at length in the House and Senate BEOFRE the 9News report:
Lundberg Audio: http://bit.ly/YeVWs9 (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FYeVWs9&h=YAQFfUFSe&s=1) Scroll to 10 Hrs, 21 Min, 47 Sec.
Holbert Audio: http://bit.ly/YvyHfX Scroll to 2 Hrs, 45 Min. Holbert Specifically to Handgun Mags: 2 Hrs, 49 Min, 50 Sec
Lundberg Video: http://t.co/ZiNy5qYOLa
Brophy Video: http://www.bit.ly/YcHd4m
Sorry for the less interesting audio files. The Senate staff does a great job of posting videos. We don't yet have that level of support in the House.
Thanks for your support in the GOooooberment Chris!!!!! What is it like to surrounded by twits?
I foresee a law suit/ challenge in court (if not better be one) if these all get signed into law............
I say we all sign a petition stating we believe this bill in not supported by us and find them in violation of the Laws of the land and we will not follow it.
Rucker61
03-17-2013, 17:04
[QUOTE=us1911;1021175]
"In a 9-news video interview last night she claimed this was the first she had heard of this "floorplate stuff".
However..."
Yes, the issue was discussed at length in the House and Senate BEOFRE the 9News report:
Lundberg Audio: http://bit.ly/YeVWs9 (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FYeVWs9&h=YAQFfUFSe&s=1) Scroll to 10 Hrs, 21 Min, 47 Sec.
Holbert Audio: http://bit.ly/YvyHfX Scroll to 2 Hrs, 45 Min. Holbert Specifically to Handgun Mags: 2 Hrs, 49 Min, 50 Sec
Lundberg Video: http://t.co/ZiNy5qYOLa
Brophy Video: http://www.bit.ly/YcHd4m
Sorry for the less interesting audio files. The Senate staff does a great job of posting videos. We don't yet have that level of support in the House.
Likewise, thanks for the great support, Chris, and pass that on to your R colleagues. I wondered when the claims of not knowing about the "extra" parts of the bills would start surfacing. Given the number of times that this particular topic was not only talked about but demonstrated, and clearly visible to those of us watching at home, she's either going to have to admit that she didn't pay attention to the discussion (or was out of the room) or is a plain liar.
I wonder if whoever drafted the wording in this bill got a phone call from certain people from New York wanting the "readably adaptable" verbage added to the bill knowing full well what that meant. And of course the dumb asses here had no idea that adding those simple words would make a world of difference.
spqrzilla
03-17-2013, 22:36
The legislation likely came prewritten from Bloomberg.
losttrail
03-18-2013, 05:52
Guys,
Remember we are working with the party of the mindset of Nancy Pelosi:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it....”
None of this surprises me.
I don't want to dissect this thing to death, but the words used in that little phrase have interesting consequences. Note: I am not a lawyer, but I do read and speak English.
The words to focus on in the final bill are:
"(2) (a) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE MEANS:
(I) A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX, DRUM, FEED STRIP, OR
SIMILAR DEVICE CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE
READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF
AMMUNITION;
(II) A FIXED, TUBULAR SHOTGUN MAGAZINE THAT HOLDS MORE
THAN TWENTY-EIGHT INCHES OF SHOTGUN SHELLS, INCLUDING ANY
EXTENSION DEVICE THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE MAGAZINE AND HOLDS
ADDITIONAL SHOTGUN SHELLS; OR
(III) A NONTUBULAR, DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, BOX, DRUM, FEED
STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING MORE THAN
EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS WHEN COMBINED WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE."
The boldface is not in the bill, it was added by me. They could have chosen any of the following to replace the bolded words.
1) "or that can be readily converted to to accept": This would require the extension to be readily available
2) "or that has been converted to accept": This would have required an extension to be installed
3) "including any extension device that is attached to the magazine": Verbatim transfer from paragraph 2.a.II. about shotgun magazines
Instead they chose the more clumsy phrase: "or that is designed to be readily converted to accept". This wording has special consequences. It focuses attention solely on details of how the magazine is shaped (e.g. threaded parts, interlockable grooves (think floorplate), attachment interfaces, etc). It does not speak to the components required to extend it, Not the physical state of having an attached extender, Not the act of adding an extender. This wording restricts any existing magazine which could theoretically be extended with a properly designed theoretical extender part. The extender part does not even have to exist, or even have been conceived of! Just that an extender part could be manufactured in the future that mates with the magazines specific shape (threads, grooves, etc) to increase its capacity.
FOR EXAMPLE: You can see why they had to add the additional clarification for shotguns. The mere fact that a shotgun magazine tube has an "open end" with threads means that someone could, in the future, manufacture an extender to attach to it. The targeted design feature is simply the threaded open end. IF the design were changed to use a non-standard, reverse-threaded end that no existing extender tubes could attach to, it would not matter! The fact that the threads are there is the design feature that makes it "designed to be readily converted to accept". "Designed" does not require the interfacing part to exist, just that it could be manufactured.
What's worse, the fact that the entire shotgun magazine tube can be removed and re-attached would have banned it by virtue of being "designed to be readily converted to accept" more than the current capacity. If shotguns were held to the standard of paragraph 2.a.I, the only shotgun that would have been transferable would have been one with a closed-end magazine tube that was welded to the shotgun! (like a flash hider welded to a 14.5 inch carbine). How do I legally take that long-tube skeet gun hunting again??
By using words that specifically focus on the "design" of the magazine, regardless of the existence of co-designed extender parts, the argument that a narrow interpretation will spare current magazines from restriction is tricky. There is not way to limit the scope of "designed to be readily converted to accept" if it is clear that an extender could be manufactured to fit the magazine. In fact, the phrase only invites expansion of scope. I can see the prosecutor now "We thought this magazine was legal, but look! See this little shelf here, and this little tab there. We had a machine shop mill up this little part to attach to them, and you can easily see that when super-glued together it is now an illegal-capacity magazine. Clearly the magazine was "designed to be readily converted", You just needed this little part that is easily produced for 95 cents."
A "narrow intepretation" would require proof that the magazine designer knew that an evil attachment could be designed and manufactured in the future, and specifically designed his magazine that way, even if the design feature has other uses (such disassembly for cleaning). The narrowest possible interpretation would require proof that the magazine and extender were actually co-designed, even if only the magazine part was manufactured.
I don't think I trust those arguments to hold up.........
Many thanks, Chris.
Sobering days.
Many thanks, Chris.
Sobering days.
(+1) Thanks for your untiring efforts and the efforts of all your level-headed colleagues.
And thanks for taking the time to post the facts to educate this less-informed member. I really appreciate the links...
DocMangler
03-19-2013, 07:40
I think at this point we all need to be looking at our political options. First is to join or visit your local lobby groups to get these jerkoffs out of office, second is to mobilize and vote in the coming years. There's a small chance that some of these could fail in court, but not likely. The clip ban has been around in Denver for a long time, it was simply over 30 rounds so it didn't have so much of an impact. Maybe there's a chance because of the transfer issue but again I'm not optimistic.
I hope this generates enough resentment in Colorado to change out our government in the coming years, I used to support Hickenlooper when he was Mayor of Denver. He wisely kept his mouth shut after Aurora while running for Governor of Colorado, and that in my book makes him a filthy liar. As for the rest of the worthless Dems in house and senate.... all I can say is we all need to be vigilant and get up off our collective asses on voting days as they come around and stop those slobs slopping at the public trough and get them out dumpster diving for lunch. Having sat in on the hearings...... I am amazed at how little interest there was by most of the Democrats to actually listen to the constituents. That being said, look no further than Arizona where the Republicans are doing the same thing.... It's like we get screwed with this stick or that stick every time we make a regime change, I'm about sick of it.
DocMangler
03-19-2013, 15:07
they are magazines not clips and the ban in denver is over 20 rounds. and dont vote democrat.
who would have thought if you supported a democrat mayor of a big city, it would bite you in the ass???
Yeah, vote Republican and get religion, the patriot act and the bank bailout shoved up your ass. And who gives a flying fuck clip/magazine/device to hold ammunition....
The point was and still is, there is not much hope of ANY court overturning hb-1224, and blindly voting Republican will get us nothing but more of the same bad behavior from a different angle. Where did all those WMD's go?
DeusExMachina
03-19-2013, 15:23
Yeah, vote Republican and get religion, the patriot act and the bank bailout shoved up your ass. And who gives a flying fuck clip/magazine/device to hold ammunition....
The point was and still is, there is not much hope of ANY court overturning hb-1224, and blindly voting Republican will get us nothing but more of the same bad behavior from a different angle. Where did all those WMD's go?
ProTip: You get the Patriot Act, bank bailout, socialized healthcare, drone strikes, US citizen assassinations, etc. with Democrats too.
At least COLORADO Republicans stand up for freedoms and what's right.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-19-2013, 15:25
Yeah, vote Republican and get religion, the patriot act and the bank bailout shoved up your ass.
Democrats will still give you religion - their religion is absolute allegiance to the state.
The patriot act is bad - the democrats haven't exactly reversed it given the opportunity.
The bank bailout was bad - the democrats agreed with it and then doubled down to give us the auto bailout, solyndra, etc, etc, etc.
Much worse, their open borders coupled with social security shenanigans and completely unsustainable medical welfare blows away anything the GOP could put together.
This "both parties are the same amount of bad" is such a bizarre argument.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-19-2013, 15:25
Welp, beat to the punch.
DocMangler
03-19-2013, 15:26
ProTip: You get the Patriot Act, bank bailout, socialized healthcare, drone strikes, US citizen assassinations, etc. with Democrats too.
At least COLORADO Republicans stand up for freedoms and what's right.
You will not be liked here, so you might as well keep your trap shut or go away.
Hey go screw yourself, I never said vote Democrat. I said don't blindly vote. I also said get up off your asses and vote. I also said go join or visit a local pro-gun lobby group. And as for the rest of your list we agree.... its time for some kind of change other than what either of these shithole party has to offer us. Lol wtf your mom sure liked me.
DocMangler
03-19-2013, 15:29
ProTip: You get the Patriot Act, bank bailout, socialized healthcare, drone strikes, US citizen assassinations, etc. with Democrats too.
At least COLORADO Republicans stand up for freedoms and what's right.
They do until they are the majority, then it's right back to head in sand.
DocMangler
03-19-2013, 15:30
you are clueless. hopefully you wont last long here. way to attack people on your first day melvin
Uhh yeah Ill be here unless i get banned, so far all you fucks do is go around flaming. You got something dribbling out of your mouth but it's not a string of solutions.
DocMangler
03-19-2013, 15:31
I think at this point we all need to be looking at our political options. First is to join or visit your local lobby groups to get these jerkoffs out of office, second is to mobilize and vote in the coming years. There's a small chance that some of these could fail in court, but not likely. The clip ban has been around in Denver for a long time, it was simply over 30 rounds so it didn't have so much of an impact. Maybe there's a chance because of the transfer issue but again I'm not optimistic.
I hope this generates enough resentment in Colorado to change out our government in the coming years, I used to support Hickenlooper when he was Mayor of Denver. He wisely kept his mouth shut after Aurora while running for Governor of Colorado, and that in my book makes him a filthy liar. As for the rest of the worthless Dems in house and senate.... all I can say is we all need to be vigilant and get up off our collective asses on voting days as they come around and stop those slobs slopping at the public trough and get them out dumpster diving for lunch. Having sat in on the hearings...... I am amazed at how little interest there was by most of the Democrats to actually listen to the constituents. That being said, look no further than Arizona where the Republicans are doing the same thing.... It's like we get screwed with this stick or that stick every time we make a regime change, I'm about sick of it.
Most of you drooling retards didn't even read this part did you? In it I am talking about what????? Getting the Dems out of office.
AAAANNNNNNDDDDDD........ 30 day ban.
hurley842002
03-19-2013, 16:20
AAAANNNNNNDDDDDD........ 30 day ban.
Good riddance!
Kraven251
03-19-2013, 17:20
AAAANNNNNNDDDDDD........ 30 day ban.
Thank you. I didn't feel like arguing all the holes in hb1224 with him, and yeah probably will die in the courts sorta like bans on 32oz soda.
DeusExMachina
03-19-2013, 17:44
It's a ban on 17+ oz soda. A 32oz would be an assault soda for sure.
Rucker61
03-19-2013, 19:37
you are clueless. hopefully you wont last long here. way to attack people on your first day melvin
"Melvin". You kill me.
losttrail
03-20-2013, 05:00
It's a ban on 17+ oz soda. A 32oz would be an assault soda for sure.
Wouldn't a 32oz soda be considered a "Soda of Mass Destruction" or "Soda of Midsection Distention"?
AAAANNNNNNDDDDDD........ 30 day ban.
Thank you. :)
Here is what I posted to the DP:
1224 won't be observed by most of the law enforcement across the state.
1224 won't be observed by most of the gun owners across the state.
1224 will be unknown by most of the criminals across the state.
1224 is the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act of 2013
Man, not even here 30 days and already serving a suspension.
I really hope the courts will stand on law and some logic when these get reviewed. But I'm not holding my breath. Would there be an injunction if the paperwork is filed with the courts prior to July 1?
Man, not even here 30 days and already serving a suspension.
I really hope the courts will stand on law and some logic when these get reviewed. But I'm not holding my breath. Would there be an injunction if the paperwork is filed with the courts prior to July 1?
they may well need it to go into effect and have someone charged before the courts can hear it. not sure.
1224 won't be observed by most of the law enforcement across the state.
Is that true? Because the way I saw it shaking out in the testimony phases of these bills... Sheriffs were opposed, but police chiefs were for them. I guess you would have to break it down to an individual law enforcement officer level, but the police far outnumber the sheriff's and sheriff's deputies... do they not? So what are the police officers going to do? Are they going to side with another agency/department (the Sheriffs) or will they side with their own department?
While the police chiefs are for the laws... I'd be curious to know how many of the officers under those chiefs feel the same way. And will they comply? I don't know. I'm not that comfortable in thinking we don't have to worry about law enforcement enforcing these laws. I actually think that besides the Sheriffs... there is great concern in thinking most other law enforcement WILL [try to] enforce these laws. Can they really be enforced? Not really. But there is nothing stopping a LEO from confiscating, charging and then letting YOU (the owner) pay out of pocket to try and prove otherwise.
Is that true? Because the way I saw it shaking out in the testimony phases of these bills... Sheriffs were opposed, but police chiefs were for them. I guess you would have to break it down to an individual law enforcement officer level, but the police far outnumber the sheriff's and sheriff's deputies... do they not? So what are the police officers going to do? Are they going to side with another agency/department (the Sheriffs) or will they side with their own department?
While the police chiefs are for the laws... I'd be curious to know how many of the officers under those chiefs feel the same way. And will they comply? I don't know. I'm not that comfortable in thinking we don't have to worry about law enforcement enforcing these laws. I actually think that besides the Sheriffs... there is great concern in thinking most other law enforcement WILL [try to] enforce these laws. Can they really be enforced? Not really. But there is nothing stopping a LEO from confiscating, charging and then letting YOU (the owner) pay out of pocket to try and prove otherwise.
I think it depends on the jurisdiction. This will be enforced (as much as it can be which is not much) in the metro area and possibly in some of the other municipalities. The enforcement in the areas that care will be similar to a seat belt violation where another charge will be in addition to a more serious charge. In Aurora, you have a problem. The Aurora PD will not be friendly.
The Aurora PD will not be friendly.
No doubt! Thankfully... we'll be closing on a new home up in Weld County come the end of May so we'll be out of Aurora before this goes into effect. Whenever we are out and about and plan on going towards Aurora, Denver, Boulder... we will just have to "pack" accordingly. Instead of my 16-rounders for my .40 (1 freaking round too many)... I'll be packing my 11 rounders. Yes my 16-rounders are grandfathered... but since these laws are so screwy... I'm not leaving it up to APD or DPD to try and determine WHEN those magazines were purchased.
No doubt! Thankfully... we'll be closing on a new home up in Weld County come the end of May so we'll be out of Aurora before this goes into effect. Whenever we are out and about and plan on going towards Aurora, Denver, Boulder... we will just have to "pack" accordingly. Instead of my 16-rounders for my .40 (1 freaking round too many)... I'll be packing my 11 rounders. Yes my 16-rounders are grandfathered... but since these laws are so screwy... I'm not leaving it up to APD or DPD to try and determine WHEN those magazines were purchased.
I hear ya. I keep 17 rounders for the hand gun in my bug home bag so I plan to change them out with 15 rounders. All my concealed carry options are under 15. I have no desire to deal with the people in the metro area. I can't say my spending habit will change much because I already boycott Denver.
In Aurora, you have a problem. The Aurora PD will not be friendly.
As someone not overly familiar with Aurora, is Aurora more stringent about guns than other places? (sorry, I'm not really up to speed on the goings/comings in Aurora)
As someone not overly familiar with Aurora, is Aurora more stringent about guns than other places? (sorry, I'm not really up to speed on the goings/comings in Aurora)
...Well, seeing as the whole Aurora theatre shooting happened there...
As someone not overly familiar with Aurora, is Aurora more stringent about guns than other places? (sorry, I'm not really up to speed on the goings/comings in Aurora)
Aurora blends into Denver a little more each year. They have dog bread bans and I have no reservation that they will embrace the gun grabber bills with enthusiasm. Additionally the Arapahoe Country Sheriff is in favor of the legislation. Unfortunately, I have a rental house there, but I sure wouldn't live there.
losttrail
03-20-2013, 13:50
...Well, seeing as the whole Aurora theatre shooting happened there...
Plus Aurora is "represented" by all Democrats (Marxists), including "Rap Sheet" Rhonda Fields.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-20-2013, 17:32
No doubt! Thankfully... we'll be closing on a new home up in Weld County come the end of May so we'll be out of Aurora before this goes into effect. Whenever we are out and about and plan on going towards Aurora, Denver, Boulder... we will just have to "pack" accordingly. Instead of my 16-rounders for my .40 (1 freaking round too many)... I'll be packing my 11 rounders. Yes my 16-rounders are grandfathered... but since these laws are so screwy... I'm not leaving it up to APD or DPD to try and determine WHEN those magazines were purchased.
I have receipts scanned into my iPhone. :)
The burden of proof is on them. Maybe I did buy them in Wyoming on July 2, 2013 - but here is the evidence I'll bring that you are now up against, Mr. Officer.
I have receipts scanned into my iPhone. :)
The burden of proof is on them. Maybe I did buy them in Wyoming on July 2, 2013 - but here is the evidence I'll bring that you are now up against, Mr. Officer.
Sorry Jeff, its not up to the officer. The bill says the "burden of proof is with the prosecutor". He gets involved after the charge is made (and confiscation has happened).
Sorry Jeff, its not up to the officer. The bill says the "burden of proof is with the prosecutor". He gets involved after the charge is made (and confiscation has happened).
Unfortunately, that is correct. They can charge and confiscate and then leave it up to the prosecutor to prove or drop. It could take months and thousands in legal fees before your case is dropped and you get your guns back.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-20-2013, 21:45
Sorry Jeff, its not up to the officer. The bill says the "burden of proof is with the prosecutor". He gets involved after the charge is made (and confiscation has happened).
Unfortunately, that is correct. They can charge and confiscate and then leave it up to the prosecutor to prove or drop. It could take months and thousands in legal fees before your case is dropped and you get your guns back.
OK.....
...but if I'm in that situation where a charge is made and confiscation occurs, something big has already happened - big enough to the point I'm already looking at months and thousands in legals fees.
Unfortunately, that is correct. They can charge and confiscate and then leave it up to the prosecutor to prove or drop. It could take months and thousands in legal fees before your case is dropped and you get your guns back.
Yup, and by then, the mags have not been in your 'continuous posession' and they can't 'transfer them back to you' - so, how about *them* apples.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-20-2013, 21:56
Well, that is certainly a sticking point....
husky390
03-20-2013, 22:50
Is that true? Because the way I saw it shaking out in the testimony phases of these bills... Sheriffs were opposed, but police chiefs were for them. I guess you would have to break it down to an individual law enforcement officer level, but the police far outnumber the sheriff's and sheriff's deputies... do they not? So what are the police officers going to do? Are they going to side with another agency/department (the Sheriffs) or will they side with their own department?
While the police chiefs are for the laws... I'd be curious to know how many of the officers under those chiefs feel the same way. And will they comply? I don't know. I'm not that comfortable in thinking we don't have to worry about law enforcement enforcing these laws. I actually think that besides the Sheriffs... there is great concern in thinking most other law enforcement WILL [try to] enforce these laws. Can they really be enforced? Not really. But there is nothing stopping a LEO from confiscating, charging and then letting YOU (the owner) pay out of pocket to try and prove otherwise.
Sheriff's are elected, police chiefs are appointed/hired. I can't speak for all LEO's but if you are in a left leaning city, you can bet your ass LEO's will not be friendly, or at least the policy being handed down from the higher ups.
lowbeyond
03-21-2013, 09:51
p3 of the final enrolled bill
(3) THE OFFENSE DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
SHALL NOT APPLY TO:
...
(V) AN OUT-OF-STATE TRANSFEREE WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A
LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE; OR
They exempted everyone traveling into Colorado. [ROFL2] [ROFL3] [LOL]
DeusExMachina
03-21-2013, 10:06
Wait, what? Is this for real?
p3 of the final enrolled bill
(3) THE OFFENSE DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
SHALL NOT APPLY TO:
...
(V) AN OUT-OF-STATE TRANSFEREE WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A
LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE; OR
They exempted everyone traveling into Colorado. [ROFL2] [ROFL3] [LOL]
HAHAHAHAHAHA seriously?!?! These jokers need to be removed from office immediately. Talk about retardation at it's finest.
I can't say my spending habit will change much because I already boycott Denver.
Being a fellow mountain dweller I too boycott Denver! [Beer] I barely even go east of Sheridan if I can help it...
I don't see these laws being enforced and I'm not really scared. My EDC has a 15-round magazine (no, I'm not spending more money on a damn 10-rounder)... I'll just be waiting for the courts to overturn this, hopefully sooner rather than later.
DeusExMachina
03-21-2013, 11:01
You are all the subjects of Colorado Democrats and herr Dickinpooper!
But if you're just coming to visit, you have more rights in Colorado than a Colorado citizen.
Wait, what? Is this for real?
no, there was a missing section.
(3) THE OFFENSE DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO:
(a) AN ENTITY,OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF ENGAGED IN HIS OR HER EMPLOYMENT DUTIES,THAT MANUFACTURES LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES WITHIN COLORADO EXCLUSIVELY FOR TRANSFER TO,OR ANY LICENSED GUN DEALER,AS DEFINED IN SECTION 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S.,OR ANY EMPLOYEE THEREOF ENGAGED IN HIS OR HER OFFICIAL EMPLOYMENT DUTIES,THAT SELLS LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES EXCLUSIVELY TO:
(I) A BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES;
(II) A DEPARTMENT,AGENCY,OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,OR OF ANY OTHER STATE,OR OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT;
(III) A FIREARMS RETAILER FOR THE PURPOSE OF FIREARMS SALES CONDUCTED OUTSIDE THE STATE;
(IV) A FOREIGN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR SUCH TRANSFERS BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT;OR
(V) AN OUT-OF-STATE TRANSFEREE WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE;OR
(b) AN EMPLOYEE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES WHO BEARS A FIREARM IN THE COURSE OF HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES:
(I) A BRANCH OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES;OR
(II) A DEPARTMENT,AGENCY,OR POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,OR OF ANY OTHER STATE,OR OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT;OR
(c) A PERSON WHO POSSESSES THE MAGAZINE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTING THE MAGAZINE TO AN OUT-OF-STATE ENTITY ON BEHALF OF A MANUFACTURER OF LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES WITHIN COLORADO.
That section (3.a) applies to manufacturers and their customers. The next section (3.b) is the LE exception, and the last section is the common carrier exception
lowbeyond
03-21-2013, 11:26
oops my bad. you are right
i got confused with the subsections numbers
thanks
DeusExMachina
03-21-2013, 11:30
Yeah, that's pretty important.
it just came to me that in state LE/Govt agencies cannot have their magazines shipped to them. The common carrier exception only applies when shipping out of state, not when receiving from out of state or in state.
Perhaps there is a more general exception for common carriers elsewhere in the CRS?
You are all the subjects of Colorado Democrats and herr Dickinpooper!
But if you're just coming to visit, you have more rights in Colorado than a Colorado citizen.
Kind of like those not legally in the US have more rights than a US Citizen? Those damned liberals! [Mad]
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-21-2013, 14:45
I don't see these laws being enforced and I'm not really scared. My EDC has a 15-round magazine (no, I'm not spending more money on a damn 10-rounder)... I'll just be waiting for the courts to overturn this, hopefully sooner rather than later.
This is my concern - and where I was going up just a little bit on this page (default setting).
What happens if you are stopped for routine traffic violation?
I personally always disclose that I have a CCW.
Sometimes they don't even care, others have asked what I have, where I have it.
None have ever wanted to see it.
Might they now? I don't know.
At first I thought it would be wiser to carry something with 15 or less, but given this baseplate BS, that really is no different from carrying with 17 or more.
Right? Anyone have other thoughts? This law is terrible. It can't even be interpretted.
But, where I was going above is, "yep, dated receipt for magazine right here on my phone..."
Maybe it won't matter.
This is my concern - and where I was going up just a little bit on this page (default setting).
What happens if you are stopped for routine traffic violation?
I personally always disclose that I have a CCW.
Sometimes they don't even care, others have asked what I have, where I have it.
None have ever wanted to see it.
Might they now? I don't know.
At first I thought it would be wiser to carry something with 15 or less, but given this baseplate BS, that really is no different from carrying with 17 or more.
Right? Anyone have other thoughts? This law is terrible. It can't even be interpretted.
But, where I was going above is, "yep, dated receipt for magazine right here on my phone..."
Maybe it won't matter.
It would depend on the officer and jurisdiction, but I too disclose my CCW status when pulled over (haven't had to yet though). I don't think they're going to be actively searching for violations... we will see though. And since there is no way to really prove you did or didn't purchase before the ban went into effect without concrete evidence, it would be just spinning wheels in an already crowded court system- IMHO. I would hope cops would be smart about this and not start causing a huge fuss.
After July 1 I'd stop volunteering the information about a CCW when pulled over, especially if you're carrying a 15 round or larger mag. Though I live in Aurora, so your area might be a bit more 2A friendly.
lowbeyond
03-21-2013, 19:19
Yeah, that's pretty important.
Yep. I feel dumb. Lol
lowbeyond
03-21-2013, 19:20
After July 1 I'd stop volunteering the information about a CCW when pulled over, especially if you're carrying a 15 round or larger mag. Though I live in Aurora, so your area might be a bit more 2A friendly.
I'm not anymore.
I've been pulled over a couple of times with a loaded pistol in the car. I didn't volunteer anything, gave very brief answers to any questions. What I'm doing is none of their business, even moreso now. Don't let them search your car without a warrant, don't volunteer any information, it can and WILL be used AGAINST you. The police, especially now aren't there to help you, they are there to subjugate you and they'll use your trip to the ol' shootin' range to do it.
So I got all my various shotguns and tubes and ammo out at the range and played with variations...
Anyway, here is what you get with 28"...
(19) Aguila minishells (only 100% reliable in Win SXP, 1300 and FNH P12)
(16) 2" shells birdshot.
(12) 2 3/4" shells birdshot. Some slugs and buckshot will only allow (11) to be under the 28", so be careful.
(10) 3" shells.
(8) 3.5" shells.
Shotshell lengths are measured as the uncrimped length of the hull, so a 70mm/2 3/4" shell loaded is 2.3 to 2.4" loaded.
You can thank Kopel for that. He is the one that got them to make that change. They were so ignorant, strike that, I mean stupid (we tried to explain it... they could not learn so..... Stupid is correct) that he got them to make the 28" amendment to the bill. I think he knew what he was doing.
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-21-2013, 21:03
After July 1 I'd stop volunteering the information about a CCW when pulled over, especially if you're carrying a 15 round or larger mag. Though I live in Aurora, so your area might be a bit more 2A friendly.
I've been pulled over a couple of times with a loaded pistol in the car. I didn't volunteer anything, gave very brief answers to any questions. What I'm doing is none of their business, even moreso now. Don't let them search your car without a warrant, don't volunteer any information, it can and WILL be used AGAINST you. The police, especially now aren't there to help you, they are there to subjugate you and they'll use your trip to the ol' shootin' range to do it.
Any thoughts on this from CCW instructors / LEO? They can find this in the "persons of interest" database anyway, right? That was what I was taught for some counties in CCW class...many moons ago, unfortunately.
FWIW, I do get pulled over a lot and feel as though the things I was taught in CCW class regarding traffic stops has saved me a lot of tickets.
Batteriesnare
03-21-2013, 21:33
Any thoughts on this from CCW instructors / LEO? They can find this in the "persons of interest" database anyway, right? That was what I was taught for some counties in CCW class...many moons ago, unfortunately.
The POI file is no longer kept in Colorado as of last year. They only know if you tell them/they find it.
A lot of LEO's I've spoken to (I'm also a CCW inst) prefer full disclosure. As they put it "Assaults on LEO are up exponentially, and we train accordingly." "My guys are going home at night."
Just use common sense, and don't hesitate to call for the LEO's supervisor.
I don't volunteer more information to LE than is required by law. There's a reason we have rights and what has been said can not be unsaid. Now with these new laws I have even more reasons to keep my business my business. Other than a few Sheriff's I don't feel like LE had our back on these laws anyway so I don't feel the need to go above and beyond the call of duty to make them feel more comfortable any longer either. Sorry but but the us v them that was us v the government is also the LE v us and this was made readily apparent by how many of them sold us citizens our nationally while having special exemptions for themselves. Shit's getting real...
After July 1 I'd stop volunteering the information about a CCW when pulled over, especially if you're carrying a 15 round or larger mag. Though I live in Aurora, so your area might be a bit more 2A friendly.
You haven't seen those videos of cops losing their shit over a guy "failing" to disclose he had a gun on him? I know, not all cops are like that, but I'd rather not risk getting the one that I do not inform that I'm carrying, he finds out I am, and completely goes crazy and threatens to kill me while he arrests me for no good reason. Double edged sword here... this could get hairy.
You haven't seen those videos of cops losing their shit over a guy "failing" to disclose he had a gun on him? I know, not all cops are like that, but I'd rather not risk getting the one that I do not inform that I'm carrying, he finds out I am, and completely goes crazy and threatens to kill me while he arrests me for no good reason. Double edged sword here... this could get hairy.
There's no excuse for this behavior and I refuse to let him violate my rights so he doesn't 'go off' on me. Are you going to let him illegally search your ride so he doesn't snap?
There's no excuse for this behavior and I refuse to let him violate my rights so he doesn't 'go off' on me. Are you going to let him illegally search your ride so he doesn't snap?
No... But I will let him know, for his and my safety, that I'm carrying. If he attempts to violate my rights then that's where we'll have a problem and I'll request his supervisor and/or my lawyer.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-22-2013, 16:56
Cops have to get used to people having CCWs just like they got used to black people driving nice cars- it is a civil rights issue. They might not like it, but that doesn't make it illlegal. I understand it would make cops jobs easier if everyone that had a gun was a bad guy, just like it would make life easier for them if they could treat all black people as being guilty. If a cop can't handle that level of comlpexity, they shouldn't be a cop.
If I get pulled over I'm not going to tell him I have a CCW until he makes me get out of the car- I'll give them that- but I'm locking the doors as I get out...
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-22-2013, 17:54
There's no excuse for this behavior and I refuse to let him violate my rights so he doesn't 'go off' on me. Are you going to let him illegally search your ride so he doesn't snap?
This is where I am at as well. My mind could be changed, and I'm open to other thoughts here from instructors and LEOs.
As I learned in CCW class (and again, it was a long time ago), all windows down (unless snow or whatever), keys visible on the dash, hands @ 10 & 2, and I'm very liberal with the use of "sir." Although after a few years in the South, I use it liberally anyway.
If this is becoming bad / old / outdated advice, I'll revise the practice.
I really think all this has saved me a lot of tickets over the years. LEOs tend to be thankful to get the info, and I have a nice collection of business cards and warnings. None have been on a powertrip. Only a few were curious what I had and where I had it.
husky390
03-22-2013, 18:21
This is where I am at as well. My mind could be changed, and I'm open to other thoughts here from instructors and LEOs.
As I learned in CCW class (and again, it was a long time ago), all windows down (unless snow or whatever), keys visible on the dash, hands @ 10 & 2, and I'm very liberal with the use of "sir." Although after a few years in the South, I use it liberally anyway.
If this is becoming bad / old / outdated advice, I'll revise the practice.
I really think all this has saved me a lot of tickets over the years. LEOs tend to be thankful to get the info, and I have a nice collection of business cards and warnings. None have been on a powertrip. Only a few were curious what I had and where I had it.
That's pretty much what I do. I was even pulled over by a bike cop while I was on a bike. I was O/Cing a 1911 at the time but he couldn't see it and didn't believe me when I told him. He finally looked and was thankful I told him. Anyways, there was one time I forgot to tell a cop that I was carrying and he saw it sitting on the seat of my truck. I'm hear to tell you that sh*t got real and the whole situation changed. I apologized for not telling him and offered to step out of my truck. After that, things went fine and no ticket.
I will continue to operate this way as the last thing in this world I want is to be on the wrong side of a cops gun when drawn. If he's a dick, then I will request him to call his supervisor and will patiently wait. And no, he's not going to search my vehicle unless he/she has a warrant. A lot of times you will not receive a ticket based on your attitude alone. Unless you're in Castle Rock or speeding through a small town.
just remember that if directly asked you do have to answer honestly if currently carrying. No requirement to notify but there is a requirement to answer the direct question "Are you armed"
james_bond_007
04-01-2013, 16:47
So, if after 01JUL13, someone from out of state ships a package addressed to a Colorado resident) , with signed delivery confirmation....
and the package contains a >15 round magazine...
1) Is the recipient (and/or person who signed for the package) in violation of this new law for possessing contraband ?
2) The sender, being out of state (assuming a state w/o mag bans), is not in violation of any laws, correct ?
3) Would Colorado be able to issue a warrant for the arrest of the sender for doing a "transfer" after 01JUL13, if the sender subsequently entered into Colorado ?
I ask this, as many here have back-ordered PMAGS from sources other than Magpul. Most indicate it is the buyers responsibility to determine legality.
If those order ships after 01JUL13, there may be unexpected issues.
NOTE: It would be interesting if a legislator received such a >15 mag package after 01JUL13 ....
kidicarus13
04-01-2013, 18:05
Why would you have to sign for magazines? Inconspicuously take the parcel to a friends house, open it there, make sure the mags are dated stamped before 07/01/13, toss the box and receipt in the friend's trash, and take legal mags home. Simple as that if you are paranoid which it sounds like you are.
Great-Kazoo
04-01-2013, 18:16
So, if after 01JUL13, someone from out of state ships a package addressed to a Colorado resident) , with signed delivery confirmation....
and the package contains a >15 round magazine...
1) Is the recipient (and/or person who signed for the package) in violation of this new law for possessing contraband ?
2) The sender, being out of state (assuming a state w/o mag bans), is not in violation of any laws, correct ?
3) Would Colorado be able to issue a warrant for the arrest of the sender for doing a "transfer" after 01JUL13, if the sender subsequently entered into Colorado ?
I ask this, as many here have back-ordered PMAGS from sources other than Magpul. Most indicate it is the buyers responsibility to determine legality.
If those order ships after 01JUL13, there may be unexpected issues.
NOTE: It would be interesting if a legislator received such a >15 mag package after 01JUL13 ....
outside of an online deal from a person NO vendor will be shipping anything questionable July 1 if not sooner
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.