Littleton to Denver: FU on CO Mag Cap Limit

Surefire 60-round magazine courtesy brownells.com

Colorado doesn’t have an ammunition capacity limit law—yet. The bill banning “high capacity” magazines is now sitting on Governor Hickenlooper’s desk. The smart money says Hickenlooper will sign House Bill 1224 or at least not not sign it (and let it become law). Its passage is bound to trigger outrage from Rocky Mountain State gun guys and prompt mag maker Magpul’s exodus (taking some 200 jobs out of state). Even before that fateful day, residents of Littleton, Colorado are vowing to make their displeasure known. They’re already proposing a ballot initiative to give voters a voice by passing a law stating that only the voters can restrict magazine size and remove any existing restrictions. There are still a number of steps before the measure makes it to the ballot, but a journey of a thousand miles…

comments

  1. avatar RipVW32 says:

    YAY!!! Better than nothing!!!!

    1. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      It is a start. Good for them, take their government back!

  2. avatar JohnnyNRA says:

    March 13, 2013
    Today, the Colorado House of Representatives confirmed House Bill 1224 by a 34-30 vote, which will make all newly purchased magazines with a capacity over fifteen rounds illegal as of July 1, 2013. This bill is also so poorly written that it will make ANY MAGAZINE purchased after July 1 illegal to own due to fanatical language inserted by anti-gun extremist New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s puppets in Denver.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Lucky bastards.

      I’m kidding, but compared to what we’re going to get . . . At least most modern handguns will be fine. Do any of the Glocks other than the 17 take more than 15?.

      1. avatar caadbury says:

        There are handgun manufacturers in addition to Glock, you know.

        The full-sized Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm carries 17 in the magazine.

        The Springfield XD 9mm has a factory magazine capacity of 16 rounds (or 19 rounds if you get the XD(M)).

        1. avatar int19h says:

          CZ-75, Beretta PX4…

        2. avatar janklow says:

          i think it’s fair to say every manufacturer of note who manufacturers a handgun in this day and age makes a product that will be affected by this.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      >> This bill is also so poorly written that it will make ANY MAGAZINE purchased after July 1 illegal to own due to fanatical language inserted by anti-gun extremist New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s puppets in Denver.

      Can you please clarify? Here is the final version of the bill:
      http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/7E6713B015E62E6F87257B0100813CB5?open&file=1224_enr.pdf

      I don’t see any language that would have the effect that you have described in there.

      1. avatar Mamba says:

        Umm…did you not watch the video I posted?
        “A FIXED OR DETACHABLE MAGAZINE…CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING…MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF
        AMMUNITION;”
        While I woudn’t say “any” mag, it remains that many mags can be easily extended to accept more than their “stock” capacity. Just one example:
        http://www.midwayusa.com/product/511319/arredondo-checkered-extended-magazine-base-pad-5-glock-20-21-nylon-black-and-10-pct-extra-power-spring

  3. avatar Pulatso says:

    Fix local. Local will fix state. State will fix country. We need more of this!

    1. avatar Rambeast says:

      +1 This! Everyone is soooo focused on the federal level, that they forget that it all starts at home.

      1. avatar Bobtrumpet says:

        Never a fan of Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, but he was right when he said “All politics is local.”

  4. avatar anonymous says:

    Denver Municipal Ordnance 38-130, the city’s “assault weapons” ban enacted in 1990, prohibits magazines with a capacity of 21 or more rounds.

    In 2003, Colorado enacted a “state pre-emption” law (along with “shall issue CCW”), which prohibited cities from enacting their own gun control laws.

    Denver sued Colorado. In a mixed ruling, Denver’s “assault weapons” ban (which includes magazine restrictions) was upheld, but Denver’s restrictions on CCW was not.

    It is going to be interesting to see if cities can enact their own magazine-limit laws that over-ride the state’s new 15-round limit. The way I read it, 16-20 round magazines will still be legal to buy and transfer in Denver.

    Denver claimed status as a “home rule” city; I’m not sure what the means or if it’s applicable to other municipalities. Perhaps someone smarter than me can chime in with the legal details of how that all works.

    1. avatar JohnnyNRA says:

      Well cite your line were you got it from, you’ve messed up on more than the NADD act.

  5. avatar Whatever says:

    Littleton might not be the ideal demo test for this. Highlands Ranch might be better. Littleton is a little too commie Kalifornified.

    1. avatar RipVW32 says:

      Are you kidding??? Have you been to the Ranch lately? Talk about a majority of self-entitled-the world owes me-bleeding heart liberals!!!! At least Littleton still has farm properties in it’s bounds (who would be assumed to own guns)…

  6. avatar Ed says:

    To be clear this is a proposal being formed by Littleton residents to AMEND THE COLORADO STATE CONSTITUTION; not a Littleton town law.

    Also, the poll on the Denver Post site shows ~10k of ~12k polled support the idea.

  7. avatar JohnnyNRA says:

    Following the Senate committee hearings with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate, many observers have arrived at the conclusion that the U.S. Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, was off duty and unavailable to make military decisions within the Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack, according to Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (U.S. Army- Ret.).

  8. avatar JohnnyNRA says:

    Gen. Vallely is on record promising the father of the slain former Navy SEAL Ty Woods, Charles Woods, that he and Stand Up America “will press the investigation to the end.”

    “My son violated his orders in order to protect the lives of at least 30 people. He risked his life to be a hero. I wish that the leadership in the White House had the same moral courage that my son displayed with his life…,” said Mr. Woods.

    “Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naivete’ in the least and complete indifference to the threat conditions provided by the intelligence community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by political corruption and ineptness by the national security team,” the general added.

  9. avatar Avid Reader says:

    KOA radio (Denver) had Duane Liptak of Magpul on from 9:00 AM until 10:30 today on the Mike Rosen show. Rosen is a friend of the 2nd Amendment. Worth tracking down if you’re interested in Magpul’s take on things. KOA usually posts the archive within about 24 hours.

    http://www.850koa.com/pages/mikerosen.html

  10. avatar ChuckN says:

    As long as they’re starting ballot initiatives, how about recalls
    for every legislator who voted for the bill. Tempers are
    pretty high, they could probably get enough support for
    atleast a few.

    1. avatar Armchair Command'oh says:

      I’ve read elsewhere that a group called the Basic Freedom Defense Fund has already started the recall process against a couple of legislators.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      > a group called the Basic Freedom Defense Fund
      > has already started the recall process

      Here: http://www.coloradoaccountability.com/cms/

  11. avatar In Memphis says:

    “… only the voters can (determine the law) restrict magazine size and remove any existing restrictions.”

    Now this is an interesting theory. Given the current state of this country maybe we aught to try that out.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’d like to hope that only the Constitution can make those decisions.

      1. avatar In Memphis says:

        Unfortunatley thats not what is happening in our once great nation.

      2. avatar Rambeast says:

        When the wording is left open to “interpretation” the Constitution can be whatever the interpreters want it to be. I agree that the Constitution is the bedrock of our society, and should be followed to the letter. When you allow laws to be passed that chip away at it, then it becomes less a bedrock and more like gravel. Eventually it will become sand, and you know the old saying about the foolish man who built his house upon the sand…

        I am hopeful that the Constitutionalist movement that is gaining traction will begin to repair the damage done that the liberals started in 1912.

        1. avatar In Memphis says:

          Mathew 7:26

          I guess I should clarify my original statement. It was partial sarcasm. What I was trying to say though was maybe the voters would be better law makers vs the politicians who (clearly do not) speak for the “majority.” Again it was partial sarcasm but I think it has a little ground consodering so many people are speaking out against what the supposed majority “wants.” Of course I agree that the Constitution should be followed to the letter. Some days I just dont even know whats real anymore with these damn laws. Its not constitutional protected but did we seriously just have law makers in a state fight to ban soda size!?

    2. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      I agree IM, I’m tired of hearing that “everyone wants their guns taken”. Every poll I see is 8 to 1 against bo & that 3 ring circus, Randy

  12. avatar Lance says:

    Think its easier to kill this law in court.

  13. avatar Doug Richards says:

    This issue may be a mute point.
    ” What many Americans don’t realize is that there is one more UN Small arms meeting coming to America’s shores this coming March 18th through the 28th. Could this be the end of private gun ownership in America as we know it?”

    Retrieved from http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/03/read-un-small-arms-treaty-march-18-28-2013-if-ratified-the-2nd-amendment-will-be-gone-video-2498844.html

    1. avatar William says:

      So the little blue helmet hotshots think they can confiscate our guns? Mercy! What a slaughter that’s gonna be.

      1. avatar Randy Drescher says:

        Yes, armored vehicles & drones do not secure a territory. We would need to set an example like Vlad the Impaller did, that was quite memorable to people who would intrude, Randy

  14. avatar Tim LeVier says:

    Nick – Thanks for the article and support! Thanks to everyone commenting for the support!

    I hope I can get you all to support my proposed amendment initiative and visit my newly minted blog site for regular updates. This is not an organized effort. It is a grassroots effort. By the people, for the people.

    The site’s first post has the proposed language and I hope you read it with an open mind because the language is not ideal – but effective and moderate.

    Set your bookmark for: putittothepeople.blogspot.com

    1. avatar Nazgul says:

      The Amendment has my vote! Thank you Tim. I hope that you will have a successful outcome. 🙂

    2. avatar Ed says:

      I know how I’ll be voting!

      1. avatar Ed says:

        But, I do not feel anyone should dictate the magazine capacity I require.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email