New Colorado Magazine Laws & Limited/Open Division

[awfaxis]

See above comment to alecmc. Oh, and show me where it is a felony to import, offer for sale, mfg, etc a mag > 10 rds in CA. ( here's a hint: it isn't one )

Here is a link to all the dirty details : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709

For 2014, the CA Penal Codes were updated to make the above link from 2008 obsolete. This is the verbiage now.

As a Nevada resident, I cannot cross state line with my 20 rd mags in possession. Going to have to buy 10 rd mags.

PENAL CODE SECTION 32310-32390

32310. (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section

32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section

17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any

person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured,

imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for

sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity

magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding

one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section

1170.

1. For purposes of this section, "manufacturing" includes both

fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination

of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower,

and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning

large-capacity magazine.

32311. (a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section

32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section

17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2014, any

person in this state who knowingly manufactures or causes to be

manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or

exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large

capacity magazine conversion kit is punishable by a fine of not more

than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in a county jail

not to exceed six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This

section does not apply to a fully assembled large-capacity magazine,

which is governed by Section 32310.

1. For purposes of this section, a "large capacity magazine

conversion kit" is a device or combination of parts of a fully

functioning large-capacity magazine, including, but not limited to,

the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of

converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity

magazine

[MarkCO]

Wow, 45 posts later we find out that DNROI has ruled on the CO laws before the thread even started. And then a DONE! is typed like the hand of god just reached down and called everybody stupid.

Kevin, I would never call you stupid. I don;t read all the threads and I honestly did not see this one until this evening. If I have a question on a new rule, I ask either an AD, an RMI or DNROI. Chances are good, they have a basis. I see the frustration, but it is not my fault I did not see the thread until all manner of opinion had been tossed around. I spent 5 days at the state house opposing these stupid laws, meeting with legislators and doing all I could do. To say I am unhappy is an understatement. Then when I read the rule the is the subject of this thread, I about popped. I don't agree with every ruling Amidon has made, but I do make every attempt to follow the rules as written or interpreted.

rgkeller: This is pretty darn clear: 11.8.1 Interpretation of these rules and regulations is the responsibility of the

USPSA Director of NROI.

So, the DNROI has the authority to make rule interpreations, not the BOD. If the BOD does not like a rule or ruling, they can change the rules, but that is not the discussion.

[rgkeller]

ARTICLE 5 ‐ BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

The Board of Directors shall consist of the President and the elected Area Directors.

5.1 Business:

The Board of Directors shall be responsible for directing the overall policies of the corporation. A primary responsibility of the Board is to provide strategic planning and leadership on key issues to ensure the long-term health and viability of the organization. Specific areas of Board responsibility include, but are not limited to:

...

vi.) review and ratification of National Range Officer Institute (NROI) policies and procedures.

[MarkCO]

Okay, so the board can change NROI practices...does not change the rule book citation referenced above.

[Nik Habicht]

You're both right, boys......

move along, nothing to see here.....

[Pseudonym]

See above comment to alecmc. Oh, and show me where it is a felony to import, offer for sale, mfg, etc a mag > 10 rds in CA. ( here's a hint: it isn't one )

Here is a link to all the dirty details : http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=124709

Warpspeed did you even bother to read the link you posted? If you bothered to read it the information you linked to on CalGuns is right there. PC 12020 is the old CA penal code, it is currently under 32310 it was just a renumbering of the penal code. If you had bothered to read any of my other posts the information is there and linked to CalGuns as well. The so called "loophole" where you and I think most people get confused is because of grandfathered in magazines. Due to the fact there are grandfathered in magazines, possession is not a crime, as there is no date of manufacture, etc. on magazines. See below in bolded text, that is from the current CA penal code.

PC was 12020.

CA Penal Code 32310 (a)(2)) states:

Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section

32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section

17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any

person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured,

imports into the state,

keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or

who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine is

punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or

in the state prison.

A violation of 32310 is considered a "wobbler" (see e.g. In re Jorge M. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 866, 880.) in California as it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. The current jurisprudence in California is that the statute of limitations for a "wobbler" is the same as the statute of limitations for a felony.

Warpspeed here is a little more current link from CalGuns, that includes information of the recently passed AB 48.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=387409

Warpspeed here is a letter from CA DOJ responding to questions about high capacity magazines.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ-large-cap-magazines-2005-11-10.pdf

Edited February 7, 2014 by Pseudonym

[Pseudonym]

For the new shooters coming into the sport, they do have the chance of being negatively impacted by this new law. But given the current verbiage of the law, these new shooters can still compete unrestricted in Limited or Open LEGALLY by simply borrowing or renting high capacity magazines from shooters who own them LEGALLY within the grandfathering requirements of the law. The shooting community does band together in times like these and I am sure many local shooters would be willing to help a fellow new shooter compete in whatever division they want by lending what is needed to make it all happen without breaking the law. I am not saying that this is an optimal solution to the issue, but it is a viable solution.

Cha Lee before you and Moto go off telling people to loan or rent out magazines, I would have a competent gun attorney look at the text of this section of the law. It reads to me that the owners of high capacity magazine are not allowed to lend or give their magazines away.18-12-302 (2) (a) (II)(II) MAINTAINS CONTINUOUS POSSESSION OF THE LARGE-CAPACITYMAGAZINE.

That is one part of the new law that has been clarified by the state lawyers. It is legal to lend your high capacity magazines to others as long as you are present. This requirement can be easily met by simply attending a match with the person you are lending the magazine to and getting it back before you leave the match.

That is great at least there is enough vagueness in the bill that you have some latitude as far as what you can do. Not wanting to sidetrack the discussion any further, but did they have any interpretation as far as inheritance, or allowing the magazines to be passed along to others after the owners demise?

[warpspeed]

My bad. I always thought the language "not to exceed one year in county" was a misdemeanor reference. I see where they tag the " in state prison" on to make the felony an option.

I just think throwing out the felony reference as a scare tactic is a bit melodramatic.

I also am leary of those who post on the internet with no location. Even more distrustful of those with low post count. And a bit hateful towards those who spell the name of my great state with a "K".

Edited February 7, 2014 by warpspeed

[Pseudonym]

My bad. I always thought the language "not to exceed one year in county" was a misdemeanor reference. I see where they tag the " in state prison" on to make the felony an option.

I just think throwing out the felony reference as a scare tactic is a bit melodramatic.

I also am leary of those who post on the internet with no location. Even more distrustful of those with low post count. And a bit hateful towards those who spell the name of my great state with a "K".

It is not meant as a scare tactic, I want to drive home the very real possibility of what rights people can/will be giving up if they are caught.

Being distrustful or having suspicion is fine, but I have not posted any information which is false, nor am I trying to bait or troll someone into a pointless argument. I typically read and rarely post on any internet forums, as trying to convey a message or thought through the written word is not my strong suit. There is often too much read between lines, and wrong interpretation of ideas or thoughts that end up in pointless fights, which result in more posts and flame wars.

Mods I am going to drop an "F" bomb in here feel free to delete if you feel the need.

I have been fighting these anti-gun f*#ks here in the state of Kalifornia since the late 1980's. If it offends you that I spell Kalifornia with a "K" I am sorry, but what with the great downward slide this state has taken in the past 40 years, it has no resemblance of the California I grew up in.

[MarkCO]

but did they have any interpretation as far as inheritance, or allowing the magazines to be passed along to others after the owners demise?

Yes. Magazines, and firearms, at least as currently interpreted, can be passed to immediate family members. There is a law proposed in the current session that would include step children.

However, realize that there are legal challenges and the current "enforcement" interpretation was written by the AG, who is a Republican, and put into effect by the judges order. So technically, it could change.

My boys own a lot of magazines in boxes with their names on them, just in case.

[Shadowrider]

MarkCO, wasn't there discussion on the House Floor about exempting competitions or wasn't this one of the reasons for the grandfathering? I think I remember hearing it brought up in debate (I listened to a good bit of it online while it was happening).

As for the rule, USPSA has it right. The CO law is all about sales, NOT possession or use.

[MarkCO]

There is a competition exemption, but it is pretty hard to make all the restrictions apply. It was basically for Appleseed and Boyscout type programs.

The whole thing is a mess. I've talked with prosecutors, defense attorneys, Chiefs and Sheriffs, they are not even sure on some points. The numbers are in from the 2013 hunting seasons...does not look like there was an effect. So basically, we lost MagPul and the associated jobs and revenue for a basket of snakes.

I do have to give props to the WY legislators...I have received personal calls seeing if they can get me to move to WY.

[gondo]

How is this new law going to affect new shooters who may not have owned higher capacity mags before the law went into effect. They will obviously be at a huge disadvantage to those who legally owned 19-20 round mags.

Will USPSA have to put limits on mags according to various state laws?

Pat

ship them to your out of state in laws and pick them up at christmas, its not like they have serial numbers on them

[gondo]

There is a competition exemption, but it is pretty hard to make all the restrictions apply. It was basically for Appleseed and Boyscout type programs.

The whole thing is a mess. I've talked with prosecutors, defense attorneys, Chiefs and Sheriffs, they are not even sure on some points. The numbers are in from the 2013 hunting seasons...does not look like there was an effect. So basically, we lost MagPul and the associated jobs and revenue for a basket of snakes.

I do have to give props to the WY legislators...I have received personal calls seeing if they can get me to move to WY.

IMO if you are a chief or sheriff it is your duty to uphold the constitution and this %&$# is not in it...

[gondo]

no wonder magpul pulled out of CO

[MarkCO]

Just FYI...

Senator Herpin and Senator Baumgardner will be presenting a bill to repeal last year's high-capacity magazine ban to the State Affairs Committee on Wednesday, February 12th. SB 100 is a full repeal of HB13-1224, which bans the sale, transfer, and possession of magazines larger than 15 rounds. HB13-1224 also bans any magazine that is readily convertible and shotgun magazines that hold more than twenty-eight inches of shotgun shells.

AND

This morning's Post reports Magpul to get $13M incentives for move to Cheyenne. Just has to be signed by WY governor. Should be a slam-dunk as gov was instrumental in getting Magpul to move there. Cheyenne will be the manufacturing hub, but main offices will go to Texas.

Edited February 7, 2014 by MarkCO

[Steve RA]

Less expensive to live and manufacture in Wyoming, Texas has better transportation facilities, makes sense both ways.

[Doug S]

"New Colorado Magazine Laws & Limited/Open Division" is the topic of this post, but understand, this law affects all the divisions in Multi-gun matches. I don't own an AR mag that is under 20 rounds! Is USPSA going to limit the rounds in the rifles since NEW shooters won't be allowed to buy HC mags in Colorado? If Colorado doesn't repel this law and USPSA says that we are limited to 15 rounds in our rifles (to keep it fair for NEW shooters), then I think a lot of shooters will bypass matches there.

Just food for thought.

[MarkCO]

Doug, read post number 44. The rule is simply not applicable to Colorado.

If you owned the magazine prior to July 1, 2013 whether you lived in CO, on the moon, Canada, SD or even NY, it is legal for you to use it in Colorado.

[Flatland Shooter]

I agree this crazy law needs to be taken off the books and when it is, everyone, including the press, needs to herald the fact that the American people are getting fed up.

In the meantime, I will not travel into Colorado with magazines capable of holding over 15 rounds. From this thread, I understand that grandfathered magazines are perfectly legal and that "most" law enforcement cannot or will not enforce the law as it stands.

But I still have a concern that some small town Barney Fife might decide to make examples of a few law abiding citizens. Then its up to me to prove I've had the magazines for years and they are legal. And that will probably require the time and expense of an attorney.

In my younger days i shot more than a few major matches in Colorado and I still think its a wonderful place to visit, but as far as bringing firearms into the state, I am reluctant.

Bill

[Doug S]

Doug, read post number 44. The rule is simply not applicable to Colorado.

If you owned the magazine prior to July 1, 2013 whether you lived in CO, on the moon, Canada, SD or even NY, it is legal for you to use it in Colorado.

Mark,

I understand Colorado's law, my concern is about USPSA saying we can't load more than 15 rounds in a mag since it wouldn't be fair to new shooters. If they say we can't use HC mags in our Openguns, then what is the difference with our HC mags in our rifles?

Doug

[MarkCO]

USPSA has not said that, in fact the opposite. That said, there are other rulesets.

[The Antichrome]

But I still have a concern that some small town Barney Fife might decide to make examples of a few law abiding citizens. Then its up to me to prove I've had the magazines for years and they are legal. And that will probably require the time and expense of an attorney.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution. They would have to prove that you havent had them for years. (No, I'm not a lawyer.)

[MarkCO]

But I still have a concern that some small town Barney Fife might decide to make examples of a few law abiding citizens. Then its up to me to prove I've had the magazines for years and they are legal. And that will probably require the time and expense of an attorney.

Burden of proof is on the prosecution. They would have to prove that you havent had them for years. (No, I'm not a lawyer.)

That is true, and I have talked to a LOT of prosecutors and Sheriffs...I know of an anti-gun Police Cheif who won't enforce the law because he is smart enough to figure out it is unenforceable and it will consume limited resources to defend their actions if he tries to make examples.

I won't ever tell anyone what to do with their choices, but I will try to get them to think about them. I still believe America is a free country, and if you make your choices within the confines of the Constitution, you should be GTG. But we have WAY too many stupid fights, opinions and just plain ignorance within our own ranks that are doing more harm than good these days. Death by a thousand cuts, from your neighbor...can not abide.

[jluther820]

The purpose in USPSA passing that rule is to enable match directors to amend the magazine capacity limits to adhere to hard defined local or state laws that limit magazine capacity. As I stated before, if a blanket 15 round or less capacity law was passed, meaning that everyone applies with no grandfathering, then we would have to adhere to the 15 round limit at local USPSA matches. But that is not how this new Colorado law was written.

Because of the grandfathering clause in the new Colorado magazine ban law its not practical to expect the local club match staff to "Enforce" this law by restricting certain shooters from using certain capacity magazines. All we can do is hope that the shooters attending a Colorado USPSA match are adhering to the defined state laws and let them shoot whatever they want. This is really no different than local clubs not checking to see if the shooters attending matches are convicted felons or whatever else that would keep them from owning a firearm in the first place.

So this response above is the official position of the org...seems strange that we have to go to an internet forum to find the interpetiation that is clearly contrary to what is written in more official publications like the rule book, or the magazine. I guess we are supposed to know that the panda bear has the authority to speak for the organization...it seems that the organization has a problem with the concep of mean what you say, and say what you mean.

I strongly disagree with your reasoning. 3.3.1 could not be much clearer.

Colorado has a mag restriction. Matches there must adhere to the law.

"In states where competitors are restricted by law to maximum magazine capacity, that maximum capacity will be the maximum allowed for all competitors in the contest."

If a shooter shows up and wants to compete legally and he only has newly aquired 15 round mags then the match should respect that and abide by the laws and the RULES.

The way I read it... this applies to NJ, NY.. others.. but not Colorado or California (as examples).. since the law does not restrict the use of magazines to 15, it just stops people from buying magazines greater than that

but that's just my 1.5 cents worth

If you don't apply the rule to Colorado...are you not encourging folks to break the law and acquire hi-cap mags!

Yes, their position is that if you want to compete and have the same magazine capicity, you should put your liberty at risk and lie to say you have had them since before the ban. Seems problematic for anyone under about 30.

Ok, let me approach this from a different angle to see if it makes more sense for some people. In Colorado the new 16+ round magazine capacity ban applies to acquiring or purchasing new high capacity magazines after July 1st 2013, not limiting the use of high capacity magazines. There is nothing that states you can't USE or BORROW a high capacity magazine past the cut in date even if you or another person didn't "own" it before the July 1st 2013 date. Then there is the whole grandfathering rats nest. The new law basically states that if you owned 16+ round magazines before July 1st 2013 you are grandfathered into legally owning those high capacity magazines before the cut in date of the law. As we all know many magazines do NOT have manufacturing date stamps on them so proving that a magazine was purchased after the July 1st 2013 date is impossible. Obviously if a magazine does have a manufacturing date stamp that can be validated or if a totally new design of firearm/magazine was created after the July 1st 2013 date it will obviously apply to the restrictions defined by the law.

I also want to point out that given all of the loop holes and confusion around how this new law is written the Colorado local and state law enforcement agencies can't even define how this new law will be enforced. There have been ZERO accounts of it being enforced as most law enforcement agencies in Colorado don't want to even touch this law with a 10 foot pole.

If the local and state level law enforcement agencies can't even enforce this law properly, how on earth can you expect a volunteer driven USPSA club to properly enforce it? The answer to that, is that this new magazine capacity law will NOT be enforced at the USPSA club level.

So, the lie is ok in a state where there have been no prosicutions, maybe that works for now in Colorado, but I thought there had been some in Ca.