1224 and selling to non-restricted states?

I know that after July 1st we are not allowed to buy or sell mags over 15 rounds but can keep the ones we already own. However what about selling to states without restrictions? For example, would it be legal for me to sell a 30 round mag that I owed before July 1st to someone in Texas through a online source like gunbroker or ar15.com once the law goes into effect?


Also a huge thank you to those working on recalling Morse (I've donated a few times and will try to again soon) and a huge thank you to all the sheriffs standing up for our rights. Through this and 2014 hopefully we can win back our beautiful state and repeal all of these idiotic laws...

That is in fact what the dimocrats are hoping will happen to all the >15 capacity mags, over time - that they will be carried or sold out of state.

The following is a post I made on May 21st and received not one comment. I'm starting to believe that when anyone sees a BlasterBob post, they just ignore it thinking that the OLD bastard is just making another idle post. Anyhow, here's what I posted:

This is wording in the CO AG's Technical Guidance letter:
"However, the bill prohibits the owner of a large-capacity magazine from selling or transferring it after July 1, 2013" and he goes on and on ------.[blah-blah]
The way this is worded, he makes it sound like we cannot ever sell these hi-cap mags to ANYONE after July 1, 2013, even if they are taken it out of the great State of CO to be sold in some other State that still allows possession of them. That's the way it is worded or at least the way I interpret it although there would be no way in hell that they could enforce our not being able to sell them outside of CO.
Looks like our wonderful AG will have to add a few words to his "letter of guidance" [fail]

Now, sure hope this is not considered a REPOST!!!!!!

Thanks for the clarification but I will do what I want with my property.

CLARIFICATION?
If the AG's bull shit statement about us NOT being able to get rid of these magazines is clear to you, you must be capable of "reading between the lines". I can't see how he has ANY control over us regarding selling off these mags once we are out of "HIS" State and way out of his jurisdiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

The following is a post I made on May 21st and received not one comment. I'm starting to believe that when anyone sees a BlasterBob post, they just ignore it thinking that the OLD bastard is just making another idle post. Anyhow, here's what I posted:

This is wording in the CO AG's Technical Guidance letter:
"However, the bill prohibits the owner of a large-capacity magazine from selling or transferring it after July 1, 2013" and he goes on and on ------.[blah-blah]
The way this is worded, he makes it sound like we cannot ever sell these hi-cap mags to ANYONE after July 1, 2013, even if they are taken it out of the great State of CO to be sold in some other State that still allows possession of them. That's the way it is worded or at least the way I interpret it although there would be no way in hell that they could enforce our not being able to sell them outside of CO.
Looks like our wonderful AG will have to add a few words to his "letter of guidance" [fail]

Now, sure hope this is not considered a REPOST!!!!!!

---

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The way it's written seems to imply that after July 1st one is not legally able to sell their 15+ round magazines, even to someone out of state where it is legal to own. When you look at the restrictions on removable floor plates (readily convertible), the "continuos possession" section, the arbitrary limits on capacity, and the seemingly inability to sell out of state, it's blatantly obvious this legislation is aimed at law abiding citizens, not criminals (as if that was ever in question for us). I'm so sick of this shit, wake the hell up America! If we can't turn this around by 2014 I may have to sadly leave this state I have so proudly called home for the last 8 years :(

The law criminalizes possession - in Colorado - of a magazine greater than 15 rounds that was not owned/possessed before July 1st 2013. So obviously you can sell them to people out of state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

3. So obviously you can sell them to people out of state.

---

I agree but this is not allowed - according to the exact wording of the AG's Tech. Guidance Letter. Is that not the way it is worded???

The definition of "Continuous possession" is my concern.

Because the definition of possession is not the same as ownership.

I own lots of things that are not in my "possession" right now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

You guys get so caught up in the words that it makes me laugh a little.

I'm just gonna turn all mine in to the police to avoid any sort of accidental law breaking. If you guys want, you can give all your mags to me so that I can do a mass turn in on June 30th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

Thanks for the clarification but I will do what I want with my property.

---

Unfortunately either no you won't or you will do it illegally. That is only part of what makes this so bad. 2014... Stay pissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

The way this is worded, he makes it sound like we cannot ever sell these hi-cap mags to ANYONE after July 1, 2013, even if they are taken it out of the great State of CO to be sold in some other State that still allows possession of them. That's the way it is worded or at least the way I interpret it although there would be no way in hell that they could enforce our not being able to sell them outside of CO.

---

What you are ultimately saying is that a person must follow the laws of their state of residence even when they are in another state.
The reason there is no way to enforce it is because their jurisdiction ends at the state boundary.
Would you smoke pot in a state where you'd like to sell your magazines (assuming it isn't WA)?
Would you try out your CCW in downtown Chicago or DC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

The law criminalizes possession - in Colorado - of a magazine greater than 15 rounds that was not owned/possessed before July 1st 2013. So obviously you can sell them to people out of state.

---

The wording is that you cannot even sell them even out of state unless you have an ffl.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

I'm just gonna turn all mine in to the police to avoid any sort of accidental law breaking. If you guys want, you can give all your mags to me so that I can do a mass turn in on June 30th.

---

I've got plenty of magazines and will not be selling the vast majority of them. However, sometimes I do sell a gun I rarely use to buy another one that I want (I also had to sell a couple to pay medical bills during cancer). Based on this ridiculous new law and the fact there are times I may sell a gun, I am curious if I can sell it with a 15+ round magazine on gunbroker, ar15.com, etc. to someone in another state or if that would technically be breaking this stupid law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Lebowski

What you are ultimately saying is that a person must follow the laws of their state of residence even when they are in another state.

---

No no no, I am not saying that. Our illustrious AG has worded it that way in his guidance letter. I sure as hell do NOT go along with the wording he is using.

I apologize - what the post is ultimately saying... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeep297

I am curious if I can sell it with a 15+ round magazine on gunbroker, ar15.com, etc. to someone in another state or if that would technically be breaking this stupid law.

---

I would think you certainly could just as long as the buyer in the other state could legally buy/own/posses it. If we were to question our legislators about this, (those who dreamed this crap up), they would most likely say, " Well, we couldn't think of EVERYTHING".....[Mad]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

I would think you certainly could just as long as the buyer in the other state could legally buy/own/posses it. If we were to question our legislators about this, (those who dreamed this crap up), they would most likely say, " Well, we couldn't think of EVERYTHING".....[Mad]

---

That's what I would assume and would make rational sense. However the idiots who came up with this run their lives based on emotion and leave zero room for reason...

I will sell MAGAZINE REBUILD/REPAIR KITS to my friends.
A spring, plastic curved box, metal base plate etc.
Just parts I have laying around............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

You guys get so caught up in the words that it makes me laugh a little.

---

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
- Bill Clinton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

You guys get so caught up in the words that it makes me laugh a little.

---

That's exactly the point of this law. Nobody knows anything about actual de jure or even de facto enforcement, and it scares us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

You guys get so caught up in the words that it makes me laugh a little.

---

OK, right now based on the wording of this law which every nuance means everything to a prosecutor and a lawyer "possession" means literally "possession" and not selling to anyone means just that. A single word or phrase means everything when it comes to law. The way the law is written it even states that the burden of proof is on the state. If a cop arrests you and places charges on an illegal mag (even though they need to prove it) are you going to spend thousands on a lawyer or plea to a lesser deferred charge and give up the $15 surplus AK mag?

Right now the law is so ambiguous that anyone at anytime could charge you with something without any clear reason. Though ultimately it is up to the state to prove the charges, whatever they do you cannot recoup your own legal fees from them even when you will likely win the case. This legislation is confiscation through atrophy, even if they charge you and confiscate the mags in question who is going to waste their time and money trying to fight it?

Ultimately despite the sheriffs lawsuit, the best response to all of this would be for someone with legal backing to pony up as the poster boy for high cap mags and do a transaction for high cap mags on the capitol steps (which should theoretically get an arrest and prosecution) on July 1st to get the first court case rolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikedubs

That's exactly the point of this law. Nobody knows anything about actual de jure or even de facto enforcement, and it scares us all.

---

And I don't think it was by accident. Especially when this legislation was crafted elsewhere and handed to our inept legislators.

I believe their aim is to make firearm and firearm accessory possession laws similar to that of traffic laws - where there are enough laws on the book to pull you over at any time if law enforcement has a desire for a closer look.

Coming back from the range and walking into your house with some 30 rnd magazines? Probable cause to come on in and take a look... But don't worry! Burden of proof that you acquired them after July 1 is on law enforcement... After they've come into your home to look around.

I feel bad for all of us here to have to sweat about this bullshit. I feel just as bad for the members of law enforcement that are going to have to try to interpret this crap on the fly. But again, I believe that is the point. Get something down that is wishy-washy and solidify it in an even sterner fashion once the confusion is rampant.

This isn't legislation aimed at protecting people (we all know this). This is the first offensive in a war and the objective is to gain enough ground to launch a more focused attack.

I still retain hope that these things will be struck down or repealed at a later date. Hang in there. Keep fighting. The laws of our country are on our side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

You guys get so caught up in the words that it makes me laugh a little.

---

Well, so far we are still able to laugh if we want but I wouldn't laugh too much about some wacky wordings in the law! The assembly of those rather ambiguous few words COULD make a huge difference in a guy possibly having to do some hard time, some community service, lose some of his savings or being able to still freely walk the streets. Let's just hope all this crap gets knocked down by some sensible leaders.[dig]