• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Non-resident question....

Yooper

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
800
Location
Houghton County, Michigan, USA
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.
 

PikesPeakMtnMan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
425
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

rushcreek2

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2010
Messages
909
Location
Colorado Springs. CO
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:

Augustin

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
337
Location
, ,
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
 

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)
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.
 

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)
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.
 

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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...
 

fighting_for_freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
223
Location
Pagosa Springs, Colorado, USA
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:

mobiushky

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2012
Messages
830
Location
Alaska (ex-Colorado)
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.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
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.
 

Saxxon

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
222
Location
Northglenn, Colorado
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.
 
Top