Since they are readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds, I suspect you will not be able to buy a Glock 19 with 15 rounders after July 1. Is this the general consensus? Will the dealers be selling them with 10 round mags come July 1?
Printable View
Since they are readily converted to hold more than 15 rounds, I suspect you will not be able to buy a Glock 19 with 15 rounders after July 1. Is this the general consensus? Will the dealers be selling them with 10 round mags come July 1?
No consensus, it's the law. Do search on the topic please!!
No ShitQuote:
Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey
The "readily converted" clause is the can of worms with this law. I think that's at least one reason why there are challenges in the works since it's very vague. I don't think anyone has a clear answer as to what will and won't be "legal" when it comes to mags at the 15 round limit and under.Quote:
Originally Posted by zulu01
The answer is: ... Maybe.
That was a lot more concise than my answer! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
Yes. Ship them all to me & I'll sell them out of state. No charge for this service.
Willing to bet $$$ the answer is NO if you're a common citizen. If the gov't wants to harass you ...then all bets are off.
Probably...for this vary reason.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...15666580_n.jpg
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...28376154_n.jpg
But cannot those be put into a 10 round mag as well? Hense the confusion in the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightCat
Same as owning a stripped lower, possible to configure into illegal configurations.
Easily converted by whom? See that is really the unaddressed point in the law.
I would love to see one of the idiots that voted for this easily convert a glock mag. I suspect they wouldn't even be able to get the baseplate off the magazine.
The answer is a definite YES, current Glock 15 round magazines will be restricted. I heard the Firing Line in Aurora is soon being shipped CA-legal 10 round GLOCK magazines with their new stock.
Note the exact words as legislated are "designed to be readily converted". This means the pretty pictures of plastic extenders do not even have to exist -- just that the magazine is designed so that the extenders could be made, and readily used for a conversion. This was the new twist tried in this law that does not appear in other State attempts to ban magazines.
However, that new twist is a significant defect that exposes it to a vagueness challenge. (There is at least one other such defect). If literally interpreted, the "designed phrase" requires the the owner to actually determine if the ability to be extended is an intentional design feature, or if it is an accidental result of a design process that was oblivious to any desires for extendability. I know it sounds like a stupid nit. But the law, as written, seems to require the owner to determine the designers intent. Did he design it to be easily cleaned and manufactured and nothing else was considered? or did he also consider the desire to be easily extended when he designed it ? Since the owner cannot know this design intent, the law can be interpreted in multiple ways and a man "of common intelligence is forced to guess at its meaning" (Supreme court's words, not mine: 1926) -- BINGO! Unconstitutional because it denies a citizen's due process.
Why are 10 round mags safe? Is there an internal block to limit to 10 that would have to be drilled out or something? (That would start to press the 'easily' envelope a bit.)
On the AR front. if you get 10 round mags with a removable base plate adding a 10 round extension and using a 20 round follower and spring is pretty easy.
Those Bloomberg guys are either brilliant or complete idiots when it comes to guns.
In the past they have made ten round mags that couldn't be easily converted to hold more. There were pistol mags that had a cross wise crimp in the body that prevented more than ten round functioning in the mag. Another pistol mag had length wise ribs that made a normally double stack mag a single stack mag. I have a Colt made AR15 mag that the body is so short that you can't get more than ten rounds in it. It has a goofy floorplate that can't be easily removed. There are some handgun mags that have non-removable floorplates. You can still disassemble them from the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
I am sure that the manufacturers are already looking at ways of complying.
When the '94 ban made new ten round mags illegal in handguns it started the compact pistol craze. Why carry a full size handgun if you couldn't have more than ten rounds in the mag? That is why a lot of the compact pistols came out. It wouldn't surprise me if Glock is looking at a new skinny, more compact version Glock 19 based on a ten round single stack mag with a fixed floorplate.
If they outlaw guns with removable mags people will just start carrying two guns. "That's alright. I have two guns. One for each of ya!"
I am in total agreement on blomberg being a complete idiot.
The 'new' law sucks but we all know it isn't going to stop anything. Where there is a will, there is a way.
Yep - you hit on a brilliant point I only heard in passing during the debate, which is the unintended consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by SAnd
I emailed it to Hick, "Rap Sheet" Fields, and my own congressfolk.
Floorplates aside, If I'm limited to 15rd magazines, I could go get a G19, but why do that if I can obtain a G20? If I only get so much ammo, maybe I want the biggest round I can get.
Or, as you say, maybe you carry more guns.
Now, which scenario would the average person want to deal with - the reasonable guy with one G17, or XD9, or M&P9 or whatever....or the folks who are now shooting out of multiple guns and shooting desert eagles or whatnot?
Guess my XDm9 will have to stay hidden. Need to get 4 more mags to add to the 3 I already have.
You're right about unintended consequences but that's not one of them. The compact pistol "craze" started with the increase in people getting permits to carry concealed. The M&P Shield was just brought out last year and while it further cut down on the round count available in the cut, the point of it was concealability -- going single-stack rather than double-stack makes the pistol that much slimmer and that much easier to conceal.Quote:
Originally Posted by SAnd
By the most liberal (pun intended) interpretation of the law, any magazine with a removable base plate will not be able to be transferred within Colorado come July 1st.
This means just about every double stack magazine in existence, and most single stack magazines as well.
Therefore as of July 1st (again, by the most liberal interpretation of the law) almost no magazines will be able to be transferred in Colorado. That will reduce the sales of virtually all semi-autos to zero (no magazines, no gun sales).
Anyone who thinks that this draconian restriction was some kind of mistake or oversight by the Democrats that penned this law is just plain stupid.
O2
DING, DING!Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
These Marxists in Denver are not stupid. The are evil.
Hell, I have a S&W SW9VE that holds 16 in the standard mag. Those 16 round mags never hurt anyone.