View Full Version : HB1224: Magazine "kits"?
DeusExMachina
03-12-2013, 15:58
What's the legality of a magazine kit? What is defined as a "magazine" by the bill?
Furthermore, if I damage a part of my magazine, can I buy a replacement part?
the readily converted part would likely rule out replacing mag bodies.
SigShooter
03-12-2013, 16:47
The way I read HB 1224, any mag that "can" be converted to more than 15-rnds are banned. Thus almost all Glock mags are banned, except for the 10-rounders...
It seemed like they could be altered to make modification impossible, but that would result in permanently attaching the base plate to the mag body... and that pretty much makes it impossible to rebuild/repair a mag.
Any way you look at this, it's gonna be a disaster.
The way I read HB 1224, any mag that "can" be converted to more than 15-rnds are banned. Thus almost all Glock mags are banned, except for the 10-rounders... It seemed like they could be altered to make modification impossible, but that would result in permanently attaching the base plate to the mag body... and that pretty much makes it impossible to rebuild/repair a mag. Any way you look at this, it's gonna be a disaster.F@#$ that. They didn't see it interpreted that way, so neither will I.
The bill states "readily converted to accept..."
The definition of readily is
Adverb
Without hesitation or reluctance; willingly:
Without delay or difficulty; easily:
Therefore, the replacing of mag bodies are *difficult* repairs for me so the rules do not apply to me.
I will not comply with this law.
BlasterBob
03-12-2013, 19:33
It seemed like they could be altered to make modification impossible, but that would result in permanently attaching the base plate to the mag body... and that pretty much makes it impossible to rebuild/repair a mag.
Permanently attaching the base plate to the magazine body would also make proper cleaning of the magazine rather difficult if that base plate cannot be removed.
SigShooter
03-12-2013, 19:37
Permanently attaching the base plate to the magazine body would also make proper cleaning of the magazine rather difficult if that base plate cannot be removed.
Yes. Yes it would... same as replacing a worn spring, or follower, etc... all normal functions.
As I told my representative, this looks like a back-door attempt to ban popular firearms.
BlasterBob
03-12-2013, 19:47
Sure, and we may still be able to keep our firearms but not the magazines and next the ammo AND COMPONENTS will be taxed so damn high that we won't be able to afford them. Get your reloading stuff before it is made illegal to use or even own em.
Sure, and we may still be able to keep our firearms but not the magazines and next the ammo AND COMPONENTS will be taxed so damn high that we won't be able to afford them. Get your reloading stuff before it is made illegal to use or even own em.
What, you guys don't have to register and do fingerprints to buy your ammo yet? [LOL]
hammer03
03-12-2013, 20:33
Anyone want to buy Lincoln's hatchet? Very well cared for, handle was replaced a few years back. Used regularly, so last week I replaced the head and sharpened it...
newracer
03-12-2013, 21:48
The bill does not address kits or rebuilding. As long as the body (or I guess no part of the mag) has no date or a date earlier than July 1, 2013 you are good to go.
These laws are unconstitutional, and I will not comply.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1jpXAjniArp0i1TueKIjmVEZJpLH3c e7yZJV-wAbh8QQ0i1RqnQ
newracer
03-13-2013, 09:43
Directly from the bill
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
"I owned this magazine prior to July 1, 2013"
DeusExMachina
03-13-2013, 09:52
I love when laws are on the honor system. Makes perfect sense.
Directly from the bill
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
"I owned this magazine prior to July 1, 2013"
This only helps to some extent. If you are charged with possession of a magazine, you will have two options:
1. Accept the plea deal and the confiscation of your magazine and likely the firearm.
2. Spend a ton of money to hire an attorney and defend yourself.
Personally, I don't have the money to hire an attorney to defend myself against this shit!
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-13-2013, 10:54
This only helps to some extent. If you are charged with possession of a magazine, you will have two options:
1. Accept the plea deal and the confiscation of your magazine and likely the firearm.
2. Spend a ton of money to hire an attorney and defend yourself.
Personally, I don't have the money to hire an attorney to defend myself against this shit!
This is what is going to happen with the DPD. It says prosecutor, which means that you have been cuffed and stuffed, or at the least had the mag pulled from you and you have been cited. I don't know any other way this is going to work. The smart thing is that cops, unless they see you swapping mags or have a post dated mag will follow the intent of the law and let you on your way. Dollars to donuts the DPD doesn't see it this way.
Sad thing is that it will give us compelling stories to use to get it rescinded if DPD starts harrassing people. Hopefully some lawsuits will cure DPD of their fire arm phobia. Citizens have guns get used to it.
The only AR15 used indisciminantly on the streets that I have heard of was used by an DPD officer who got his as in wringer for using mil ammo that he brought home from A-stan instead of the issued ammo.
lowbeyond
03-13-2013, 11:02
This only helps to some extent. If you are charged with possession of a magazine, you will have two options:
1. Accept the plea deal and the confiscation of your magazine and likely the firearm.
2. Spend a ton of money to hire an attorney and defend yourself.
Personally, I don't have the money to hire an attorney to defend myself against this shit!
Yep. People think that last part, THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO REFUTE THE ASSERTION, is important. It is not. Do you really think that you will be able to stand in front of a judge sans lawyer and utter those words and get off?
No way in hell.
Rust_shackleford
03-13-2013, 11:45
Sure, and we may still be able to keep our firearms but not the magazines and next the ammo AND COMPONENTS will be taxed so damn high that we won't be able to afford them. Get your reloading stuff before it is made illegal to use or even own em.
Will you stand for that? or lie down I should say.
Rust_shackleford
03-13-2013, 11:48
These laws are unconstitutional, and I will not comply.
Spoken like a BOSS we need more like you. Most here will give it all up for cable TV and McDonalds.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1jpXAjniArp0i1TueKIjmVEZJpLH3c e7yZJV-wAbh8QQ0i1RqnQ
muddywings
03-13-2013, 12:11
Should we start flooding our local district attorney's email/phone lines asking for how this will be interpreted?
pondering....
Anyways,
4th Judicial District is Dan May. no email, just phone lines:
http://www.4thjudicialda.com/About4.aspx
The Facebook thingy:
https://www.facebook.com/4thjudicialda
not sure what it would do other than piss his office off but I would like the 'what ifs' answered.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-13-2013, 18:22
Prosecutor working hard to get you off of the charges, who makes this stuff up??????
BlasterBob
03-13-2013, 18:36
Will you stand for that? or lie down I should say.
If it's a matter of choice - giving up my mags, ammo and reloading stuff OR get carted off to jail -- I'll choose to hand it over to them rather than go to jail and/or take all of my tiny life savings to get a mouthpiece. At my old age, I cannot afford to spend any of my remaining time in jail.[blaster]
Kraven251
03-13-2013, 20:29
A couple of the (R) Senators have already said they will not comply. They are going to break the laws and get them in front of a judge with full intent of getting them challenged and tossed.
Thus saving many a Coloradan from getting dicked over by a bogus law.
DeusExMachina
03-13-2013, 20:31
A couple of the (R) Senators have already said they will not comply. They are going to break the laws and get them in front of a judge with full intent of getting them challenged and tossed.
Thus saving many a Coloradan from getting dicked over by a bogus law.
I would be extremely happy to see this. They would be true patriots.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.