Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Non-resident question....

  1. #1
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808

    Non-resident question....

    Ok, now that the 15rnd mag limit has passed, how does this affect non-residents? I visit my in-laws every summer in western CO, and take my Glock 17 along for the ride. It of course, has 17rnd mags. Do I need to prove that I had possession of them prior to this new law going into effect? I do have some mags marked restricted/l.e. only from the '94 federal assault weapons ban, perhaps I will need to make sure I bring those along since it's obvious that they were produced prior to the law going into effect.
    Rand Paul 2016

  2. #2
    Regular Member PikesPeakMtnMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    426
    Um.....basically, yes (I think), you would have to somehow prove that you owned the mags prior to July 1. How would you do that? Ask the Dems, this was there idea....none of us really know. The burden of proof would be on the state to somehow prove that you violated the ban....which is why nearly all of our county sheriffs say this is an unenforceable law. I seriously doubt that a lot of enforcement is going to take place on this (sort've like the 1000' GFSZ) but only time will tell....and it may yet get overturned by the courts, lawsuits are already being prepared.
    One day your life is going to flash before your eyes, make it worth watching.

  3. #3
    Regular Member PikesPeakMtnMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    426
    One day your life is going to flash before your eyes, make it worth watching.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    The ratio of Coloradoans opposed to these Bolsheviks is about 65 percent to 35 percent supporting them.

    Now somebody explain how these idiots are going to stay in office come next election.

    The SAME WAY THESE IDIOTS GOT ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    ONLY ONE WAY - IF........1/2 of that 65 percent ( 32.5 is less than 35) are too lazy to even request a mail-in ballot, take the time to stay abreast of such issues, and muster the enthusiasm to fill out the ballot and put in the maibox.

    Maybe this little Neo-Marxist exhibition of elitist arrogance will wake up some of the sleeping souls before November 2014, and we won't have to be discussing these moronic provisions signed into law by Herr Rope-a-Dupe.

    Pending reversal of this insane exercise of arrogance it's readily apparent folks who don't wish to RUN THE RISK of having their magazine contents scrutinized will probably be opting to CC.

    Oooooops .....that would still be.........ahhh....kind of .... "disobedient" wouldn't it ???

    That RIGHT !...These laws are intended to limit the 2A right of CRIMINALS - aren't they ?

    I think they already conceal don't they....AND are somewhat "disobedient" of laws ???
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 03-22-2013 at 12:30 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    ... I visit my in-laws every summer in western CO...
    That's kinda funny - I live in the Southwest corner of Colorado and every September I go to visit my family in Houghton Lake, where I see you are from. World's full of little coincidences, isn't it!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Alamo Jack View Post
    That's kinda funny - I live in the Southwest corner of Colorado and every September I go to visit my family in Houghton Lake, where I see you are from. World's full of little coincidences, isn't it!
    I live near the other Houghton, in the western Upper Peninsula
    Rand Paul 2016

  7. #7
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    I live near the other Houghton, in the western Upper Peninsula
    Oh, sorry. Didn't notice the Houghton COUNTY part. But still, close enough! I also have family with property in the UP, been up there a couple times years ago - real nice out there.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Alamo Jack View Post
    Oh, sorry. Didn't notice the Houghton COUNTY part. But still, close enough! I also have family with property in the UP, been up there a couple times years ago - real nice out there.
    lol, not right now, 5ft of snow on the ground
    Rand Paul 2016

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Do I need to prove that I had possession of them prior to this new law going into effect?
    Take some photos of your mags, print them out on a piece of paper and than have it notarized. If some scum bag cops hassles you, this might convince him/her to let you go free.

    AUGustin

  10. #10
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Ok, now that the 15rnd mag limit has passed, how does this affect non-residents? I visit my in-laws every summer in western CO, and take my Glock 17 along for the ride. It of course, has 17rnd mags. Do I need to prove that I had possession of them prior to this new law going into effect? I do have some mags marked restricted/l.e. only from the '94 federal assault weapons ban, perhaps I will need to make sure I bring those along since it's obvious that they were produced prior to the law going into effect.
    Doesn't matter. You are not a resident. If you are caught with any mags, any mags, they are banned and you brought them into the state after the ban. Seriously, that is what this bill means. You have any trouble and you will lose the mags and get a class 2 misdemeanor. Of course that assumes you run into a cop willing to enforce that law.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119

    Non-resident question....

    If you're caught with them, jest tell them that they're mine. I'll give you my info if ya like. Then they can just persecute me.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Red Dawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eastern VA, with too many people
    Posts
    404
    Carry a revolver and 3 speed loaders...LOL....
    The Second Amendment is in place
    in case the politicians ignore the others

    A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone

  13. #13
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Do I need to prove that I had possession of them prior to this new law going into effect?
    Technically no. The law becomes effective 2013 Jul 1. It states that the prosecution must prove the magazine was acquired after that date.

  14. #14
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
    Technically no. The law becomes effective 2013 Jul 1. It states that the prosecution must prove the magazine was acquired after that date.
    Don't take this the wrong way, but your advice is not hitting the mark. He's a non-resident. So the proof is simple. He doesn't live in CO. He get's stopped for speeding (or whatever) cop detemines gun is present. Routine check and hey, you have banned magazines. You don't live in CO, which means you brought them in from out of state. That's illegal now. Class 2 Misdemeanor. Slam dunk case there.

    The law DOES NOT allow you to bring in mags from out of state. At all. So the "do I need proof I owned them" question is entirely irrelevant. He will have brought illegal magazines across the state line. That is easily proved. "Oh, but I didn't bring them, my buddy is letting me borrow them." Class 2 misdemeanor for you and your buddy now. The mags must remain in your "continuous possession." Believe me, IF they enforce this law as written, semi-auto handguns are all but illegal in CO by default.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Believe me, IF they enforce this law as written, semi-auto handguns are all but illegal in CO by default.
    Now I know I haven't actually READ the whole law, but I fail to see how semi-auto handguns would be nearly illegal in Colorado. Out of the 5 semi-auto handguns I own, not a one has a mag capable of holding more than 9 rounds, and none can be converted, unless I wanted to do a bunch of soldering and modifying.

    I'm not advocating for this law in any way, shape, or form. I'm just saying, there's lotsa guns out there that would still be legal. Take my 1911 for example...

  16. #16
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Don't take this the wrong way, but your advice is not hitting the mark. He's a non-resident.
    No problem, sometimes I learn the most from those who disagree with me. What part of the new law refers to and distinguishes between CO residents and non-residents?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Alamo Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    119
    EDIT: I'm a moron. I posted the bill summary, not the actual bill. Here's the proper stuff:


    Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
    SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add part 3 to article 12
    of title 18 as follows:
    PART 3
    LARGE-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES
    18-12-301. Definitions. AS USED IN THIS PART 3, UNLESS THE
    CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
    (1) "BUREAU" MEANS THE COLORADO BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
    CREATED AND EXISTING PURSUANT TO SECTION 24-33.5-401, C.R.S.
    (2) (a) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE MEANS:
    NOTE: The governor signed this measure on 3/20/2013.
    ________

    (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.

    (b) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE" DOES NOT MEAN:

    (I) A FEEDING DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY ALTERED SO
    THAT IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF
    AMMUNITION;

    (II) AN ATTACHED TUBULAR DEVICE DESIGNED TO ACCEPT, AND
    CAPABLE OF OPERATING ONLY WITH, .22 CALIBER RIMFIRE AMMUNITION; OR

    (III) A TUBULAR MAGAZINE THAT IS CONTAINED IN A LEVER-ACTION
    FIREARM.
    18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties -
    exceptions.
    (1)
    (a) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, ON
    AND AFTER JULY 1, 2013, A PERSON WHO SELLS, TRANSFERS, OR POSSESSES
    A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE COMMITS A CLASS 2 MISDEMEANOR.

    (b) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
    AFTER HAVING BEEN CONVICTED OF A PRIOR VIOLATION OF SAID SUBSECTION

    (1) COMMITS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR.

    (c) ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION
    COMMITS A CLASS 6 FELONY IF THE PERSON POSSESSED A LARGE-CAPACITY
    MAGAZINE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY OR ANY CRIME OF
    VIOLENCE, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1.3-406.


    (2)
    (a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF HE
    OR SHE:

    (I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE
    OF THIS SECTION; AND

    (II) MAINTAINS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LARGE-CAPACITY
    MAGAZINE.

    (b) IF A PERSON WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE VIOLATED SUBSECTION (1)
    OF THIS SECTION ASSERTS THAT HE OR SHE IS PERMITTED TO LEGALLY
    POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (a) OF
    THIS SUBSECTION (2), THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO
    REFUTE THE ASSERTION.

    (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.
    18-12-303. Identification markings for large-capacity magazines
    - rules. (1) A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE THAT IS MANUFACTURED IN
    COLORADO ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION MUST
    INCLUDE A PERMANENT STAMP OR MARKING INDICATING THAT THE
    LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE WAS MANUFACTURED OR ASSEMBLED AFTER
    THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION. THE STAMP OR MARKING MUST BE
    LEGIBLY AND CONSPICUOUSLY ENGRAVED OR CAST UPON THE OUTER
    SURFACE OF THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE.

    (2) THE BUREAU MAY PROMULGATE SUCH RULES AS MAY BE
    NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING BUT
    NOT LIMITED TO RULES REQUIRING A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE THAT IS
    MANUFACTURED ON OR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION TO
    BEAR IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN ADDITION TO THE IDENTIFYING
    INFORMATION DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION.

    (3) A PERSON WHO MANUFACTURES A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE
    IN COLORADO IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION COMMITS
    A CLASS 2 MISDEMEANOR AND SHALL BE PUNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
    SECTION 18-1.3-501.
    SECTION 2. Effective date. This act takes effect July 1, 2013.



    I see nothing that distinguishes between a Colorado citizen and a non-Colorado citizen. They only use the word 'person'. What I did find was this exception:

    (V) AN OUT-OF-STATE TRANSFEREE WHO MAY LEGALLY POSSESS A
    LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE;

    IANAL, but wouldn't this theoretically protect a legal out-of-stater?
    Last edited by Alamo Jack; 03-27-2013 at 11:32 AM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    You have to look at this from the standpoint of the law. First, the law does not make the bringing in of magazines illegal, it makes the magazine illegal. So the thing that is illegal is the magazine itself. In order to qualify for the grandfather clause, you must legally possess the magazine in the state prior to July 1. Because all magazines not possessed on that date are illegal. The bill does not specifically call out bringing a magazine into the state as illegal. It's the magazine that is illegal. And you can't argue that you legally possessed the magazine prior to that date if you move from out of state. Because the law only applies to Colorado residents. Think along the lines of the Denver city ban. The ban does not allow for people who move to Denver to keep their magazines. Same circumstances here. That section you took out is under the following subsection:

    (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:

    Which means it only applies under that subsection. So the reference to out of state ONLY applies to manufacturing magazines for sale to people who live out of state.

    As for the discussion about the magazine size, Magpul's legal team did a very detailed write up on the legal wording of the document. Bear in mind, we have a written law, we can't base this on the intent of the writers, it's how it's written. The line in the law states: "OR THAT IS DESIGNED TO BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT"

    According to Magpul's legal team, any magazine that has a removable base plate can be readily converted to accept more than 15 rounds. While the currently available product line really only converts 15 round to 16 or 17, that does not mean that you can't make an extension piece to extend an 8 round magazine to 16. The presence of a removable base plate makes the magazine readily convertible under this law regardless of the availability of those parts today. BTW, this is a VERY poorly written law by all accounts and is probably going to be struck down on that mere basis alone. All legal analysis ends with the same conclusions. 90-95% of all magazines on the market will be lumped into the legally banned category. Which means that from July 1 on, manufacturers will no longer ship magazines with their guns. I doubt they will redesign their mags to be legal under this law because the mags would have to be "BEEN PERMANENTLY ALTERED SO THAT IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION." So by that statement, they would have to have permanently attached base plates. Which makes them unserviceable and makers won't do that. So no mags with new guns (semi-auto specifically). And since you can't buy them anymore (same reasons) you have a useless firearm.

    I don't believe that any of this is enforceable. And I don't believe that the sheriffs will bother to. But some of the police depts are loving it and want to. I have it on very good authority that the town of Parker police are looking for ways to train their officers how to spot and identify mags that would be banned.

    Also, note that the law requires that the magazine remain in your "continuous possession." SO you cannot legally hand your magazine to anyone. Ever. I have an instructor friend who is VERY concerned about the legal ramifications of clearing malfunctions for students who are using illegal magazines. By handling the gun with the magazine, he has technically violated this law.

    Let me be clear here, this law cannot be realistically enforced. It's just too ridiculous. But as it is written this is what is says. Legal challenges are all ready in the works and will probably be successful, but doubtful it will be prior to July 1.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    To understand the confused nature and conflicting points of the bill, one mmust merely listen to Rhonda Fields for 60 seconds and it all becomes clear - she's a blathering idiot. When asked about the whole magazine extension issue right before the Chickenpooper signed the bill, she struggled with the concept and finally said, "All I know is its 15 rounds." She wrote the damned bill and thats all she knows? No research, no knowledge - she had no business writing legislation of any type if she knowns nothing of the subject. Repeal should be based on that fact alone.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by Alamo Jack View Post
    Now I know I haven't actually READ the whole law, but I fail to see how semi-auto handguns would be nearly illegal in Colorado. Out of the 5 semi-auto handguns I own, not a one has a mag capable of holding more than 9 rounds, and none can be converted, unless I wanted to do a bunch of soldering and modifying.

    I'm not advocating for this law in any way, shape, or form. I'm just saying, there's lotsa guns out there that would still be legal. Take my 1911 for example...


    Thats not entirely true. There are magazines for many firearms that extend the capacity by quite a lot. While I haven't looked for them, I am sure someone, somewhere has made a long version of a single stack magazine for a 1911 style gun. Perhaps even a double stack that necks down to single stack where it meets the grip (seems I've seen a large capacity AR mag like that).

    I have a Para 14, which is essentially a double stacked 1911 - Arredondo and others make +2 extensions for the magazines (which takes it to 16). Gotta get me some just because. You know before this, I hadn't even though about it. Come to think of it, I didn't have a 100 round AR drum either, had to get one just because - never mind it won't work in either AR I own due to accessories already mounted that get in the way.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Guess I'll have to save myself potential hassle and take the kel-tec P11......unless I can find any of the 10 rounders that I had for the Glock 17 when the federal AWB was in effect.... though I was probably so joyous when it expired it wouldn't surprise me if I chucked them in the trash.
    Rand Paul 2016

  22. #22
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Guess I'll have to save myself potential hassle and take the kel-tec P11......unless I can find any of the 10 rounders that I had for the Glock 17 when the federal AWB was in effect.... though I was probably so joyous when it expired it wouldn't surprise me if I chucked them in the trash.
    Not sure you're catching it. If it has a removable base plate, it's not legal. Even if it's less than 5 rounds. The way this law is written bans almost every magazine made. If you're thinking that your 9 rounder is ok, think again. This bill is that over reaching. Removable base plate = banned. Period, no matter what the current capacity. It was written that badly.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Anubis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Arapahoe County CO, ,
    Posts
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Removable base plate = banned.
    Fine. But you seem to be ignoring

    (2)(a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF HE
    OR SHE:

    (I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE
    OF THIS SECTION; AND

    (II) MAINTAINS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LARGE-CAPACITY
    MAGAZINE.

  24. #24
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
    Fine. But you seem to be ignoring
    Would you agree that this law only applies to CO and people within the borders of state? It does not apply to any other state. Therefore, the grandfather clause also only applies to CO residents. So if you are a resident and you own a magazine you can keep it so long as you do not allow any one else to handle it. This law is so badly written that even the author couldn't explain it when asked recently. The point is, seriuosly, this law basically outlaws firearms. Essentially. It's that stupid.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Anubis,

    The problem for people from out of state is that I doubt any of them want to be the test case for this law. Time, expense, possible jail, loss of rights etc. There is a guy fighting Denver's OC ban based on the state's CCW ban on out of state residents not being able to obtain a Colorado CCW, thus Denver is effectively denying the right to bear arms to all visitors from out of state (save if they are from a state with reciprocity with CO on CCW permits).

    Its bad enough being a test case in Colorado as a resident (trust me, I know being one of a sort). Out of state, you need to be wealthy with a lot fo free time. Thats what liberal statists rely on, the common people do not have the means to challenge their tyrannical laws.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •