New Colorado Gun bill bans standard pump shotguns

iraiam, have you heard any updates about this bill? Supposedly they are going to modify the language so that it doesn't cast this wide of a net.
 
I have not heard today, the only copies I have found on-line are in it's original form, which was a 10 round limit on magazines, and 5 rounds on shotgun magazines, but this is not the language that passed the House.
 
I'm in CO, I just bought a used Mossberg 500a and I'm a little confused. The bill as it stands right now says "CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT CAN BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION OR MORE THAN EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS.

As far as I can tell, the Mossberg 500a does not have commercially available options for extending the magazine beyond 8 rounds. Does that mean it can't "be readily converted"?

Again, if you have basic mechanical or machining skills, you could make a tube magazine hold 50 rounds(although it would be quite long), but the average Joe user isn't going to fabricate something like that.

Who knows what the "amendment" they will introduce on Monday says. My guess is it will exclude tube fed shotguns. The ones they really want to get rid of are the detachable magazine shotguns(Saiga, etc.).
Click to expand...


Receiver retrofit to accept Saiga mags?

http://www.blackacestactical.com/
 
Wow. I didn't even know you could do that. Technology is just going to keep defeating definitions no matter what they are.
 
PNAC - Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should have broadened my search for Mossberg 500 options to include detachable magazine mods.

I wanted to add though that the bill in question talks about the modification of the magazines themselves not about modifying the gun. Using the kit above, the newly converted shotgun would have to use detachable magazines that adhere to the 8 round limit.

As I see it, the gray area is whether or not a tubular or permanently attached magazine is actually considered THE firearm.
 
Last edited:
So did anyone see this "amendment" that they were talking about in the news articles? Apparently, the Senate said "an amendment dealing with that issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday".

I can't find anything that was changed from the final House version of the bill.
 
So did anyone see this "amendment" that they were talking about in the news articles? Apparently, the Senate said "an amendment dealing with that issue is currently being drafted and will be presented in a committee hearing Monday".

I can't find anything that was changed from the final House version of the bill.
Click to expand...

I haven't found anything either, as far as I know the bill was not changed, and did pass out of that committee Monday.
 
They finally posted the amended bill on the Colorado General Assembly website. According to the new version:

------------------------------------
(2) (a) "LARGE - CAPACITY MAGAZINE MEANS

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 MAGAZINE OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING MORE THAN EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS; OR

(III) A DETACHABLE MAGAZINE, TUBE, BOX, DRUM, FEED STRIP, OR SIMILAR DEVICE THAT IS CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING MORE THAN EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS WHEN COMBINED WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE.
--------------------------------------------

So basically, they removed the "readily converted" clause for shotguns.
 
My guess is, unless magpul has them scared that they will look bad for running a significant employer out of the state, it will probably pass with the changes.
Wow, never thought I would see it in Colorado.

Did you see how they plan to tell the difference between grandfathered higher capacity magazines and ones that are newly in the state? I hear that magazines are marked so that they can be dated, but it occurs to me that a whole new black market for older magazines could be created on the net to get around the date restriction.

Psst hey Bob, you got any old 30 rounders for your AR I could buy while I'm here visiting from Colorado? I'll pay you double for them:D
 
Yeah, since the date marking and serialization only applies to magazines made in Colorado, a person could drive to another state, buy an unmarked magazine and there would be no way for anyone in Colorado to know when the mag was made.

This is one of the reasons that, I believe, all of the county sheriffs have voiced their opposition to this legislation. There is no way they will ever be able to enforce laws such as this.
 
So then, "readily convertible" or not, as long as it is capable of being converted it is still unlawful.

Yup, that really "fixed" the language.
 
A " TUBE, THAT IS CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING MORE THAN EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS WHEN COMBINED WITH A FIXED MAGAZINE"
So being in possession of a piece of metal, or even plastic tubing, with the correct threads to match any shotgun's end cap will make me a criminal?
Explain to me how you would even know it was made after the ban went into effect.
These people demonstrate who they are every time they open their mouths or touch a computer.
We've got lawyers here, would a law written this poorly survive a court challenge?
 
Somebody told me he got in a group conversation with some folks who were getting pretty tight jawed about all this .(We are in Colorado)

He pointed out that the reason this is all coming about is the folks who decided they could not/would not get to he polls to vote for the opposition.
Apathy! Lame apathy.

I did what I could,and I voted.

All you who failed to vote,failed us all.NEVER,EVER FORGET!! Never let it happen again.

2014 is coming.Keep track.From the dog catcher to the President,FIRE EVERYONE WHO FAILED TO FIGHT THIS!!

And remember everyone who supported the Constitution.

It is a lot easier to keep freedom than it is to lose it and get it back.

It will be hard,it will take a long time and a lot of work.You and I are the only people that can get it done.

I guess sometimes folks just do not value what is given to them enough to take care of it.You don't miss water till the well runs dry.
 
The bill was amended.

It is better but the bill shouldn't exist at all.

SOURCE

To open floor debate Friday afternoon on House Bill 1224, a measure sponsored by Democrats, lawmakers passed an amendment that bans any shotgun magazines that hold more than 28 inches of shotgun shells. Shells vary in size, and originally the bill outlawed any magazines with more than eight shells.
Click to expand...
 
lawmakers passed an amendment that bans any shotgun magazines that hold more than 28 inches of shotgun shells. Shells vary in size, and originally the bill outlawed any magazines with more than eight shells
Click to expand...
Well, Glenn, the Colorado legislature heard you. Great job! ;)

Seriously, where did they get that measurement?
 
Vanya you beat me to it.
Eight times three and a half is twenty eight.
Maybe they figured the tube length that way.
If they were right, and this is about where my knowledge ends, that leaves me with room for 10 two and three quarter inch shells.
Considering how much these guys have been wrong, I have to ask, does the math actually work that way?
 
28/8=3.5 ... :D
Click to expand...
Math? Curses! Foiled again!

Still, that's some seriously misguided bean-counting. What bothers me is the tacit acceptance of Republican lawmakers on the grounds that it doesn't ban "common shotguns."

The article mentions an ammunition maker threatening to leave the state. Denver Bullets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top