Colorado laws USPSA magazine capacity

[C.W.]

Not sure if right forum...

I'm a Utah shooter who wants to shoot a match (limited) in Colorado. Are my extended baseplates ( on 15 round magazines) legal? Is there someone from Colorado that has a handle on the new laws and how they effect USPSA divisions?

[MarkCO]

Not sure if right forum...

I'm a Utah shooter who wants to shoot a match (limited) in Colorado. Are my extended baseplates ( on 15 round magazines) legal? Is there someone from Colorado that has a handle on the new laws and how they effect USPSA divisions?

The cops don't even know. I have several friends who are LEOs and they have even received scattered information some of which is conflicting. I was pretty involved in the process and have kept up on the Judges orders and other information from the Independence Institute. As far as your magazines, I have seen legal opinions ranging all over the map. Some attorneys have opined that you may not bring them into the state, others that say you can as long as you owned them before July1, 2013.

The Ruger Rimfire World match left Colorado based on some pretty solid legal opinions, but that was before the Judge issued the ruling basically setting the AGs interpretation as law until such time as the Sheriffs lawsuit is heard in court.

As for it affecting the USPSA divisions, NADA. We all still run USPSA rules and the USPSA rulebook is what governs.

[CHA-LEE]

Currently, I think the only way Colorado law enforcement would try to nail you with possession of "High Capacity" magazines is if you were arrested for another crime and you were in possession of the magazine during the arrest. The conditions of the arrest would probably dictate how deep in the law book they dig trying to nail you with as many offenses as possible.

I have not heard of any Colorado police officers actively trying to bust people for possessing "High Capacity" magazines as the only offense. This does not mean that there may not be some officers out there trying to do that today. But if someone was to get charged with violating the High Capacity magazine law it would probably make the news immediately.

My comments of course are not based on a legal president that has been defined in the court of law. This is just my opinion so take it for what its worth.

Here is my stance on the subject............

Are the Colorado Law Enforcement agencies actively trying to charge upstanding citizens with violating this new law? No. At least not yet.

The most probable way of even getting involved with a police officer is for a traffic violation. For example, if you are pulled over for speeding while in Colorado. Then proceed to be a complete prick to the officer which leads to an arrest, or are violating traffic laws to a point where an arrest is required. They can search the contents of your car and if high capacity magazines are found, and the officer feels like sticking it to you, he could try to hit you with violating the high capacity magazine ban law as well as what you are originally charged with for the traffic violation.

To make a long story short, don't make yourself a "target" by doing stupid things which would get the police involved. If the police are not involved with you and you are not advertizing in general public that you have high capacity magazines, then you are pretty much under the radar and it would be VERY unlikely that anyone would even know that you have high capacity magazines much less trying to charge you with violating the new law.

[CHA-LEE]

Look at it from a different angle........ California has way more strict Gun and Magazine Capacity laws than Colorado. There are probably hundreds if not thousands of competition shooters who bring "illegal" high capacity magazines into and out of the state every year to attend local and major USPSA matches. These shooters stay out of trouble and avoid interaction with the local police, basically flying under the radar. Are these shooters breaking the law and putting themselves at risk? Yes. Has there been a trend of singling out and busting competition shooters for bringing high capacity magazines into the state? No.

Its all about playing the odds I guess. How much risk you want to get involved with is totally up to you.

[kneelingatlas]

Cha-Lee, I don't know how the CO law is written, but the CA high-cap ban does not prohibit possession.

[MarkCO]

Cha-Lee, I don't know how the CO law is written, but the CA high-cap ban does not prohibit possession.

The Colorado law prohibits possession, transfer and sale of any magazine over 15 rounds not in a persons possession prior to July 1, 2013. One of the vague areas is persons who do not live in the state as of July 1, 2013. It is ambiguous at best, and one of the reasons used in the lawsuit challenging the validity of the law.

[Cy Soto]

Cha-Lee, I don't know how the CO law is written, but the CA high-cap ban does not prohibit possession.

This is the problem that we have here in CO; since the politicians hurried to write and vote these into law, there is no solid interpretation of said regulations. As part of its vague language, they have stipulated that possession prior to July 2013 serves to grandfather standard-capacity magazines but other legal experts disagree based on verbiage.

[kneelingatlas]

If there's a grandfather clause, the position bit is unenforceable. Looks like "rebuild parts" business is going to boom in CO like it has in CA...

[outerlimits]

If there's a grandfather clause, the position bit is unenforceable. Looks like "rebuild parts" business is going to boom in CO like it has in CA...

not if SB396 and AB48 make it thru. so glad i left kali

[kneelingatlas]

not if SB396 and AB48 make it thru. so glad i left kali

This legislative season is a scary one here behind the iron curtain.

[C.W.]

Okay, so I researched the positions of the Sheriffs in the three counties I would be in Mesa, Montrose, and Delta county. It appears the Montrose and Delta county sheriffs have sworn not to enforce these laws and the Mesa county sheriff has more of a "don't ask don't tell" attitude. So who does that leave?

The State Patrol?

Class 2 misdemeanor, from what I read. Which means it's handled in county court. Considering what law enforcement thinks of this law in the counties I'll be in, I think I'll take my chances.

[ima45dv8]

Not a "Rules" question, so as you correctly guessed, this isn't the right forum.

I'm moving it to the USPSA Shooting section for now, but that may not last either.

Look for this to wind up in the Firearms Law forum (which doesn't permit discussion).

Best bet -- Don't look for legal advice on an internet forum (even this one). Call an attorney.

[C.W.]

Sorry, I didn't really know where my question "fit" here. Wasn't really looking for legal advise , mostly just wanted to know how clubs and shooters in Co. were handling situations such as mine.

Your suggestion of calling an attorney is a good one, but it sounds like if I called 5 attorneys I'd get 5 different answers.

So.....L10?

[MarkCO]

Sorry, I didn't really know where my question "fit" here. Wasn't really looking for legal advise , mostly just wanted to know how clubs and shooters in Co. were handling situations such as mine.

Your suggestion of calling an attorney is a good one, but it sounds like if I called 5 attorneys I'd get 5 different answers.

So.....L10?

L10, Production, SS, Revo would all be okay no matter who you ask if the mags are under 15 rounds capacity.

[fastarget]

CW,

Yes, you can read the law if you do a little googling, but it is vague and leaves much to interpretation. The most important thing is that you cannot be prevented from traveling with your personal property, and you do not intend to import nor sell the aforementioned magazines.

If in doubt, travel with the magazines dissembled and in separate boxes. Unless you are stopped and searched (need probable cause) for some reason, then there is no excuse for you not to come and shoot the matches. For absolute ease of mind, You can also bring ten rounders and shoot L10, it would not affect IDPA with 10 rounds either. So now no more reasons for you not to come.....See you soon my friend.

[Atlgentlegiant]

Do any of the more popular magazine makes even have any sort of date stamp, much less serial number? If not then the State proving a magazine was not owned by the July 1 enforcement date would be very difficult. I think several of the sheriffs have pointed this out as a major issue with the law. Just my own personal take on it as a layman.

[fastarget]

yes, many magazines do but not all, wilsons did not, STI, don't know much about glock they may through production date or serival#, Magpuls do, but the law is specific the burden of proof rests on the state.

[MarkCO]

Do any of the more popular magazine makes even have any sort of date stamp, much less serial number?

Most of the polymer mags have a date stamp of some sort. Many aluminum GI mags have a date stamp on the floor plate and some on the mag body as well.

Pistol mags, not so much.

[warpspeed]

To the OP,

IANAL but when I read the legislation, there is no prohibition on importing magazines with a capacity > 15 rounds into Colorado.

So, unlike California, bringing in a hicap mag owned prior to July 1, 2013 to compete in a match would be just fine.

[C.W.]

Studied the bill... What a mess

There is no language about magazine extensions (except regarding tubular shotgun magazines).

So my rose - colored glasses take on it is this.

When I added the +4 dawson extended basepad to my 15 rd. Glock magazine I became the manufacturer of that magazine in that configuration. Because this was done before the bill was passed it's legal.

This may all be academic anyway, as I understand there are court challanges going on right now.

[felt]

I shoot with a Canadian and when he travels back and forth a crossed the boarder he places a screw in his mag to limit to how many rounds can be fed in, JIC he gets stopped at BP on his way back to the mother land. You could easily do this with your glock mags, limiting them to 15 for travel inside of the state, then removing the screw for the match. Rinse and repeat on the way home.

[C.W.]

I'll see more police at the match than on the way over and back...

[MarkCO]

DENVER—Parties in the case of Cooke v. Hickenlooper have reached an agreement to withdraw the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. The parties have agreed to language that the attorney general and governor will provide as technical guidance. At issue was what it means for a magazine to be “designed to be readily convertible” to one in excess of 15 rounds and what it means for a weapon to be in the “continuous possession” of its owner. Specifically, the additional guidance is that:

Magazines with a capacity of 15 or fewer rounds are not large capacity magazines as defined in HB 13-1224 whether or not they have removable base plates. These baseplates themselves do not enable the magazines to be expanded, and they serve functions aside from expansion—notable, they allow the magazines to be cleaned and repaired. To actually convert them to higher capacity, one must purchase additional equipment or permanently alter their operation mechanically. Unless so altered, they are not prohibited.

The phrase “continuous” possession in HB 13-1224 shall be afforded its reasonable, every-day interpretation, which is the fact of having or holding property in one’s power or the exercise of dominion over property, that is uninterrupted in time, sequence, substance or extent. “Continuous possession” does not require a large-capacity magazine owner to maintain literally continuous physical possession of the magazine. “Continuous possession” is only lost by a voluntary relinquishment of dominion and control.

The following statement is to be attributed to Attorney General John W. Suthers:

“The Attorney General’s Office is pleased with the agreement that provides further clarity for the plaintiffs, gun owners and dealers in Colorado. The agreement is consistent with the reasonable, narrow reading of the statute that we have advocated and it now allows the court to expeditiously move to consideration of the Second Amendment implications of the statute.

Today’s agreement is consistent with our interpretation of the statute and the guidance the Attorney General’s Office and the Colorado Department of Public Safety issued pursuant to the governor’s direction and, pending final disposition of the case, the statute will be enforced in accordance with the guidance.”

I have queried Amidon, a local Prosecutor, a Sheriff and 2 Chiefs in light of this language. At this point, even with the newly proposed rules, it appears that the combination of the competition exemption (in the background check transfer law) and the Judges order, both CO residents and visitors should be in good shape with magazines 16 rounds and over provided they owned the magazines prior to July 1, 2013.

Edited July 11, 2013 by MarkCO

[C.W.]

I didn't see a competition exemption when I read 13 - 1224. That would be good news. (Maybe what I read was just a summary?)

[MarkCO]

I didn't see a competition exemption when I read 13 - 1224. That would be good news. (Maybe what I read was just a summary?)

Not there. Sorry my bad. The competition exemption exists in the universal background check bill. Also an onerous bill.