Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 10 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      The CO Supreme Court upheld a CO gun law that “banned gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.”

      The pro-gun group argued that “the law could be construed to “ban practically all detachable magazines.”


      Question #1:

      Don’t most ARs come with 30 round magazines?

      Presumably there is also a smaller magazine or else many ARS would be now outlawed? In other words, that’s why the argument that the law “ban practically all detach bale magazines” failed

      This is solely a CO case and a CO law, but its worth noting that the CO law defined a “large capacity magazine” as those “designed to be readily converted to accept[] more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.”

      Question #2 – “do you know why the law would says “readily converted?” are there smaller magazine that you can easily convert to excess of 15?

      Please wait…

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13938

      Question #1:

      Don’t most ARs come with 30 round magazines?

      Presumably there is also a smaller magazine or else many ARS would be now outlawed? In other words, that’s why the argument that the law “ban practically all detach bale magazines” failed

      This is solely a CO case and a CO law, but its worth noting that the CO law defined a “large capacity magazine” as those “designed to be readily converted to accept[] more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.”

      Yes. The 30-round magazine is considered “industry standard” for semi-automatic rifles modeled after the M4 platform.

      And, yes, there are smaller capacity mags for these rifles.

      Not sure about the verbiage you included…but its worth noting that the CO law defined a “large capacity magazine” as those “designed to be readily converted to accept[] more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.”

      That’s an interesting definition and doesn’t appear to make much sense. Especially the “converted” part. Clearly some legal jargon or wording to cover more than it appears on the surface?

      Question #2

      “do you know why the law would says “readily converted?” are there smaller magazine that you can easily convert to excess of 15?

      See above.

      Again, I don’t get the wording of this.

      The only thing I can think of is a way to ban magazine couplers.

      But, as far as the structural integrity of the magazine, I’m not sure how you can manipulate (or convert) it to hold a higher capacity…unless I’m completely missing something obvious.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      Thanks, DH.

      I presume a coupler is something that allows multiple magazines for a single gun?

      I am curious about the language so I will find out. Just thought it might be something obvious to a person with more gun knowledge than me.

      Appreciate the responses

      Please wait…

    • tampaspicer

      Participant
      Post count: 3473

      When they say convert maybe it’s to cover someone figuring out how to combine two or more 15 clip magazines together?????

      Please wait…

    • DonkeyHunter

      Spectator
      Post count: 13938

      Thanks, DH.

      I presume a coupler is something that allows multiple magazines for a single gun?

      I am curious about the language so I will find out. Just thought it might be something obvious to a person with more gun knowledge than me.

      Appreciate the responses

      Please wait…

      Yeah.

      A magazine coupler binds two mags together with a small gap in between.

      So, essentially, you have one mag loaded while the other is resting on the side of the rifle. When the loaded mag is spent, you eject and quickly slide over the other one.

      It basically looks like two magazines glued together.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      Not a direct answer to the “readily converted” issue but the CO law goes into substantial detail:

      “Colorado prohibits the sale, transfer and possession of a “large-capacity magazine.”1

      “Large-capacity magazine” means:

      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 15 rounds of ammunition;

      A fixed, tubular shotgun magazine that holds more than 28 inches of shotgun shells, including any extension device that is attached to the magazine and holds additional shotgun shells;
      or

      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.

      “Large-capacity magazine” does not include:

      A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than fifteen rounds of ammunition;

      An attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 rimfire ammunition; or

      A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      Its possible the “designed to be readily converted to accept” was a nod to future development because with the national assault rifle ban gun makers introduced design changes to avoid the precise wording of the federal defintions

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      Its actually derived from the 1994 assault weapons ban, which used similar language.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      Buggsy – your favorite topic and not so much as a single mock?

      Weird huh?

      If you spammed the board with thousands of threads about cars, you would still be mocked.

      Obviously, you’re a douche so you spread all kinds of bs, but you’ve actual posted about destroying the cove etc. but nearly all of your posts – at numerous posters – are flaccid personal attacks lol

      Blame the authors of JBears article. They called you out haha

      Please wait…

    • Biggs3535

      Participant
      Post count: 5829

      Buggsy – your favorite topic and not so much as a single mock?

      Weird huh?

      What’s weird, Mr. Cronkite? I’ll mock you on my terms, not yours. I have a life, which clearly isn’t an issue you struggle with, so there isn’t enough time in my day to respond to the hundreds of threads/posts you make on here in a given week. However, don’t let that stop you from continuing to make yourself look like an ass. I know you won’t, lack of shame and self-awareness and all…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21938

      What’s weird, Mr. Cronkite? I’ll mock you on my terms, not yours.

      🤣

      And here I was thinking you’d post, “yeah, I know … you’re right.” Being such a non-soy boy and all that.

      Please wait…

Viewing 10 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.