Background Checks and Magazine Limits To Be Signed Into Law - Colorado

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

AP Source: Colo. governor to sign gun controls

DENVER (AP) — Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper will sign gun control measures Wednesday that pose limits on ammunition magazines and expand background checks for firearms.

A state government employee with knowledge of the situation confirmed the details to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because a formal announcement has not been made.

The signings would be a victory for Democrats in the debate over gun control in this politically moderate state where gun ownership has been a treasured right.

The proposals were Democratic centerpieces in the party's package of gun legislation aimed at addressing mass shootings at a suburban Denver movie theater and Connecticut elementary school last year. The bills would become effective July 1.

Republicans reviled both bills and argued the proposals would not prevent more shootings, but hurt law-abiding citizens' exercise of their Second Amendment rights.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20130318/US-XGR--Gun.Control-Colorado/

[Danno 1,228]

This is exactly how it should work, each state will define for its self what the Bill or Rights means.

If you don't like that interpretation of gun-laws, voting rights or whatever... move to another State.

Of course it is possible that all this gun-law stuff might blow up in the Democrats face, especially in an off year election where people with strong agendas are who turns out to vote.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is exactly how it should work, each state will define for its self what the Bill or Rights means.

So, then, you don't accept the concept of mandatory reciprocity between the states as far as CCW permits?

I like the idea Gary can't carry his weapon in 95% of the United States, while my California issued CCW would be honored in 40% of the states.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Edited March 19, 2013 by The Patriot

[Ban Hammer 13,573]

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

62% honor kansas

[Danno 1,228]

So, then, you don't accept the concept of mandatory reciprocity between the states as far as CCW permits?

I like the idea Gary can't carry his weapon in 95% of the United States, while my California issued CCW would be honored in 40% of the states.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Mandatory?

No.

It has worked out pretty well as it is, and in a short period of time, I see no need or justification for the Federal Gov't to get involved.

[BatmanUSA 105]

Magpul Industries Corp:

Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said:

We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees.

It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.

[Villanelle 4,122]

I dont have an issue with strengthening background checks- however the magazine ban is a totally different story.

Several states have bans on large capacity magazines. While the definitions vary, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are generally considered to be “large capacity” magazines.

Five states (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York) and the District of Columbia all ban large capacity ammunition magazines for use with any firearm.

California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia define a large capacity magazine as a magazine that is capable of firing more than 10 rounds. The New Jersey definition includes magazines capable of firing more than 15 rounds, while Maryland includes magazines that can fire more than 20 rounds.

It seems like Colorado is seeking to join them and is going to impose 15 rounds- however with a clause that any smaller mag that can be 'readily convertible' which is basically ALL OF THEM will also be banned. Most are designed to be pulled apart and converted.

So the biggest catch in the law is the phrase 'readily convertible'.

[Karee 4,191]

When I first read the title, I thought I was going to have to choose between Sports Illustrated or Time.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I dont have an issue with strengthening background checks- however the magazine ban is a totally different story.

Several states have bans on large capacity magazines. While the definitions vary, magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition are generally considered to be “large capacity” magazines.

Five states (California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York) and the District of Columbia all ban large capacity ammunition magazines for use with any firearm.

California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, and the District of Columbia define a large capacity magazine as a magazine that is capable of firing more than 10 rounds. The New Jersey definition includes magazines capable of firing more than 15 rounds, while Maryland includes magazines that can fire more than 20 rounds.

It seems like Colorado is seeking to join them and is going to impose 15 rounds- however with a clause that any smaller mag that can be 'readily convertible' which is basically ALL OF THEM will also be banned. Most are designed to be pulled apart and converted.

So the biggest catch in the law is the phrase 'readily convertible'.

So many mistakes in your post:

The California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms FAQ summarizes the restrictions well:

9. If I have a large-capacity magazine, do I need to get rid of

it?

No. Continued possession of large-capacity magazines (able to

accept more than 10 rounds) that you owned in California before

January 1, 2000, is not prohibited. However as of January 1,

2000, it is illegal to buy, manufacture, import, keep for sale,

expose for sale, give or lend any large-capacity magazine in

California except by law enforcement agencies, California

peace officers, or licensed dealers.

(PC Section 12020 (b)(19-29))

[Danno 1,228]

So many mistakes in your post:

Wonder how they would know, when the mag was made and if you owned it or bought a pre-2000 mag from someone else (assuming they have a date stamp.)

If the mags are dated, I would think there would be a market for pre-ban mags in Cal.

[Villanelle 4,122]

What kind of mistakes?

According to the FAQs from CA, if you acquired it -prior to the ban going in to effect, no you do not need to get rid of it- but theres the rub. How do you prove you acquired it prior to the ban going in to effect?

Do you have receipts for every magazine you ever bought? I know I dont.

Usually when bans like this go into effect, they typically exclude items that are already out there. It causes a huge surge in the market prior to it going into effect where everyone scoops up the available inventory- because they know the stuff already out there isnt going to be confiscated.

And thats fine, buy up the mags, hold on to your receipts showing you bought them just prior to the ban and youll be okay. But what about all the law abiding people that bought them months and months if not years ago that dont have the receipts any more. What do they do? They have no proof any more. They get caught with one and its- where did you get this/when did you get this? No proof it was bought prior to the ban and its being confiscated.

Most decent folks are going to have to end up trashing them because what else can they do? they cant sell them- thats illegal. They dont want the hassle of getting caught with out proof of purchase, theyre pretty much sunk.

So Colorados ban is not only limiting future magazine purchases but its taking away magazines from people that did buy them legitimately and just didnt save their receipts.

The additional clause of banning magazines that can be 'readily convertible' sounds smart on paper. I mean sure in theory okay whats the point in banning a 15 round clip and then allowing a 10 round one that people will just altered to a 15. So their solution is to say- well we wont allow those 10s either. Thats just silly.

If they dont want 15 then ban 15+. If people misuse a product or convert a product- state that thats a violation- dont ban the original item. You shouldnt ban fertilizer because someone made a bomb from it, or youll end up with a grassless state. You shouldnt ban 10 round mags that can be converted to higher capacities because you dont want higher capacity mags in your state. Simply dictate that higher capacity mags are not allowed and anyone found in possession of a converted mag will be prosecuted.

[Villanelle 4,122]

What kind of mistakes?

According to the FAQs from CA, if you acquired it -prior to the ban going in to effect, no you do not need to get rid of it- but theres the rub. How do you prove you acquired it prior to the ban going in to effect?

Do you have receipts for every magazine you ever bought? I know I dont.

Usually when bans like this go into effect, they typically exclude items that are already out there. It causes a huge surge in the market prior to it going into effect where everyone scoops up the available inventory- because they know the stuff already out there isnt going to be confiscated.

And thats fine, buy up the mags, hold on to your receipts showing you bought them just prior to the ban and youll be okay. But what about all the law abiding people that bought them months and months if not years ago that dont have the receipts any more. What do they do? They have no proof any more. They get caught with one and its- where did you get this/when did you get this? No proof it was bought prior to the ban and its being confiscated.

Most decent folks are going to have to end up trashing them because what else can they do? they cant sell them- thats illegal. They dont want the hassle of getting caught with out proof of purchase, theyre pretty much sunk.

So Colorados ban is not only limiting future magazine purchases but its taking away magazines from people that did buy them legitimately and just didnt save their receipts.

The additional clause of banning magazines that can be 'readily convertible' sounds smart on paper. I mean sure in theory okay whats the point in banning a 15 round clip and then allowing a 10 round one that people will just altered to a 15. So their solution is to say- well we wont allow those 10s either. Thats just silly.

If they dont want 15 then ban 15+. If people misuse a product or convert a product- state that thats a violation- dont ban the original item. You shouldnt ban fertilizer because someone made a bomb from it, or youll end up with a grassless state. You shouldnt ban 10 round mags that can be converted to higher capacities because you dont want higher capacity mags in your state. Simply dictate that higher capacity mags are not allowed and anyone found in possession of a converted mag will be prosecuted.

[Danno 1,228]

What kind of mistakes?

According to the FAQs from CA, if you acquired it -prior to the ban going in to effect, no you do not need to get rid of it- but theres the rub. How do you prove you acquired it prior to the ban going in to effect?

Do you have receipts for every magazine you ever bought? I know I dont.

Usually when bans like this go into effect, they typically exclude items that are already out there. It causes a huge surge in the market prior to it going into effect where everyone scoops up the available inventory- because they know the stuff already out there isnt going to be confiscated.

And thats fine, buy up the mags, hold on to your receipts showing you bought them just prior to the ban and youll be okay. But what about all the law abiding people that bought them months and months if not years ago that dont have the receipts any more. What do they do? They have no proof any more. They get caught with one and its- where did you get this/when did you get this? No proof it was bought prior to the ban and its being confiscated.

Most decent folks are going to have to end up trashing them because what else can they do? they cant sell them- thats illegal. They dont want the hassle of getting caught with out proof of purchase, theyre pretty much sunk.

So Colorados ban is not only limiting future magazine purchases but its taking away magazines from people that did buy them legitimately and just didnt save their receipts.

The additional clause of banning magazines that can be 'readily convertible' sounds smart on paper. I mean sure in theory okay whats the point in banning a 15 round clip and then allowing a 10 round one that people will just altered to a 15. So their solution is to say- well we wont allow those 10s either. Thats just silly.

If they dont want 15 then ban 15+. If people misuse a product or convert a product- state that thats a violation- dont ban the original item. You shouldnt ban fertilizer because someone made a bomb from it, or youll end up with a grassless state. You shouldnt ban 10 round mags that can be converted to higher capacities because you dont want higher capacity mags in your state. Simply dictate that higher capacity mags are not allowed and anyone found in possession of a converted mag will be prosecuted.

Yeah that was kinda my point too.

I do know that during the Clinton ban Assault weap. ban the receivers were different to only allow a specific shaped mags.

But I will let someone who knows more detail on that to clarify it better.

But to your point, how do they know which mags were preban or not, obviously the gun has a serial number but the mags don't.

I notice when you shop for a specific model rifle, they make certain ones just for California residents, I imagine those models will only take specific limited magazines.

[Danno 1,228]

They have bullet buttons which fulfill the requirement of having a non-detachable magazine (for now).

Does it attach the magazine in place?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I notice when you shop for a specific model rifle, they make certain ones just for California residents, I imagine those models will only take specific limited magazines.

More than likely, the magazine that comes with the rifle will either be modified, to only accept no more than 10 rounds, by use of a continuous weld, or rivets secured by epoxy, or by supplying a smaller magazine specifically made to carry no more than 10 rounds. You can still buy parts for larger magazines, to repair the ones you currently own, however, you cannot increase the number of functional magazines that you own that hold more than 10 rounds to more than you owned before the cut-off date.

You can even leave the state, and reimport all your larger magazines, as long as you owned them as a resident of California, prior to the cut-off date in 2001. Any offense, which could result in either a felony, or a misdemeanor charge, are subject to a three year statute of limitations. So, you are probably looking only at confiscation at worst, in most cases, and it would be up to you to make the case that you met the requirements of the law, to get them back. Under the law, you can't "loan" one of the restricted magazines to someone else generally, however, if you are at a gun range, for instance, that would be exemption, if you wanted someone else to try out your magazine, even on their weapon, just as long as he doesn't leave the range with your magazine.

So far, I have not heard from anyone that they ran into any problems owning, or using large capacity magazines in California. They are just not being sold here, as assembled magazines. Theoretically, you can still buy and possess all the parts you need to make any magazine you want.

Edited March 19, 2013 by The Patriot