Colorado Mag Cap Bill Bans Pump Shotguns

Click here for Colorado Bill 1224 that outlaws any gun that can be “readily convertible to accept” a “high-capacity” (over 10 round) magazine. In some ways, it’s a shame our pro-gun politician pal didn’t let this bill go through and then make the objection.

comments

  1. avatar Matt says:

    “Hunting rifle” ….and Hickok appeared.

    The Avalanche suck and so does the rest of Colorado.

    1. avatar William says:

      So do the Mammoth. I can’t even imagine what folks in the norther San Luis Valley think of this. A lot of coasters there, too, but most recognize the utility of a firearm – you can’t beat back a cougar or bear with an umbrella.

      Well, maybe a bear, but I wouldn’t stake my life on it.

      1. avatar Randy Drescher says:

        You can beat back a cougar with a bear though. A hiker had a cougar jump on his back & was clawing him when a bear he had been nice to in the past knocked the damned thing right off of him, Randy

        1. avatar lee says:

          the colorado shot gun law should not be passed because many proffessional hunters will lose thier jobs of course that is all our country cares about any more,getting people jobs or giveing them money to sit n thier ass and do nothing besides guns don’t kill people, people kill people it is like saying that a fork makes peole fat but it doesnt, yu can eat without any silverware. in y opinion hikenlooper is a dipshit for even thinking about passing this law

        2. avatar lee says:

          i believe the government is just trying to take our guns away so that they can take over and make us a ductatorship but the law will be passed because colorado is a liberal state

    2. avatar APBTFan says:

      Not all of Colorado sucks.

      The rural areas are all kinds of awesome. I visit my uncle who lives in Olathe and the folks there are as cool as they come and definitely NOT the ones voting in the feebs.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        A slave who sleeps further away from the master’s house is still a slave.

        1. avatar APBTFan says:

          Nice one sunshine.

  2. avatar Lemming says:

    Note that NY SAFE, from the way I read it, does the same. Nor can you register them the way you (theoretically) could an “assault weapon.” I’m surprised there hasn’t been more outcry.

    1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      Actually the NY act is okay for pump. Restrictions are on semi-auto shotguns. They’re still unclear on whether you can purchase a pump shotgun or lever action rifle that can accept more than 7 rounds after April 15, 2013, which is why I got my lever action in .44 mag (10 round capacity) earlier than planned.

      Dumba**es. All of them.

      1. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

        Actually, no. The pump action exemption is on the AWB side, the magazine capacity bill is completely separate.

        Which means that pump action shotguns will be banned.

        1. avatar APBTFan says:

          Not all. My niece just bought a Mossberg 500 and the tube is capped – no way to fit an extension.

    2. avatar Larry2 says:

      Could be people are just planning on ignoring any laws.

  3. avatar tdiinva says:

    I had read about this bill over the weekend. The way it is written if your shotgun breaks you can’t fix it or so they think. You have to maintain continuous possession of it. Not to worry though. You can maintain continuous possession as you drive it to a gunsmith in Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico or Utah to get it fixed. Let’s see them prosecute someone for taking his gun out of state. I bet outside of the Denver-Boulder corridor a lot these new laws aren’t going to be rigorously enforced.

    I was going to retire to Larimer County but even before this anti-Second Amendment wave hit the state my wife and I saw the trend of the Californication of Colorado. My first relatives who came to the States in the mid-19th Century settled in Colorado. This is disappointing.

  4. avatar Bob says:

    I grew up in Colorado. It used to be a very libertarian (little l) place. Then lots of folks started moving there from California, and now it is very liberal progressive.

    I lived there again for a few months last year. I will never live there again.

    1. avatar Josh says:

      Liberals from California are like a plague. Once they’re done f**king up their state, they have to go out and ruin another state for someone else. It sickens me.

  5. avatar DentalPrepper says:

    If Colorado bans all pump shotguns, then no guns are off limits.

  6. avatar Jon L says:

    How dare they show Hickock!!

    1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

      what state is Hickok45 from?

  7. avatar Peter says:

    UNCLE JOE DON’T LET IT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!! But seriously, this is ridiculous. Come on, Democrats, at least be honest… you want to ban all guns.

  8. avatar mymc says:

    Did they get permission from Hickok45 to use his video?

    As for Californian ruining other states, well, I apologize on their behalf. At least you don’t have to worry about me leaving this god forsaken turd hole state I call home. I will stay and fight for my right to bear arms till I am too old to walk. Count on it.

    1. avatar Redlyr says:

      As fellow Californian who is standing his ground, we need all the help we can get. Glad to see someone staying put instead of jumping ship as the seas start to get rough.

      Like it or not folks, we are the front line! AWB, magcap, and other lawsuits aren’t going to come out of Texas!

  9. avatar KY1911 says:

    Perhaps I’m missing something, but how does restricting a shotgun ammunition feeding device, i.e. a tube magazine, to 8 rounds outlaw pump shotguns?

    1. avatar Johnny Mac says:

      Because the law declares that a shotgun that is “readily converted” to more than 8 rounds is by definition a restricted item. Most pump-action shotguns have optional readily-attachable magazine extenders, rendering the shotgun itself–as opposed to the extenders–restricted weapons.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Make that shotguns that carry more than five rounds, not eight. Pretty sure that a bunch of “security” shotguns have standard seven or eight round tubes. No more Mossberg security shotguns, I guess.

      2. avatar KY1911 says:

        The only way the phrase ‘readily convertible’ impacts a tube-fed shotgun is if the phrase is interpreted to mean ‘if at all possible.’ Webster’s defines ‘readily’ as: without much difficulty; promptly, quickly, easily.

      3. avatar KY1911 says:

        Sorry for so many posts…the version adopted by the House and passed out if Senate Judiciary was amended to 8 rounds, rather than the original 5. The link in the story above is to a previous version.

    2. avatar Evan says:

      Because it states that the firearm is illegal if it is possible to extend the magazine capacity to more than the allotted number of rounds. There are some really long mag tube extensions out there so therefore it’s illegal.

      1. avatar Patrick says:

        Yes, there are very long tubes. Also one can use very short shells (like 1 3/4″, 7/8 oz, 1250 fps) though some modification may need to be done for feeding reliability. Also one can buy/build a box mag attachment into a tube mag, limiting the capacity to however long you want the magazine.

        More importantly, if any gun that accepts a “high capacity” magazine is not allowed, wouldn’t that be any gun that accepts ANY magazine? A PF9 with standard 7 rd mag can accept 30 rd mags (assuming someone wanted to make one; maybe they do that already).

        1. avatar DonS says:

          I think people are getting hung up on the “readily converted” part. Significant modifications probably wouldn’t count as “readily”.

          However, installing a $45 mag extension onto certain versions of the Remington 870 – resulting in a capacity of 9+1 – is a quick and easy task. A novice can do it without difficulty. At worst, the hardest part might be smoothing out the dimple[s] (if present) near the end of the factory tube.

          That seems to satisfy the above dictionary definition of “readily”, and thus the bill’s “readily converted” language.

          More importantly, if any gun that accepts a “high capacity” magazine is not allowed

          No. This bill only addresses magazines themselves, not the guns that use them. In the Remington 870 example, it’s the factory magazine tube that would become “illegal”.

        2. avatar Patrick says:

          Ok, you make a good point about how “readily” it can be converted. I’m sorry for my misunderstanding what is banned here; it wasn’t clear to me from the text.

          So, if a 5 rd tube is banned because of the ease of extension, then I’m guessing a replacement tube that accepts box mags would also be banned. I think I get it.

          However, I’d like to point out that “readily” basically means an older child can do it with almost no effort, and a 3 year old could do it with effort. Basically one has to be incoherent to fail at accomplishing a readily accomplished task.
          Generally, trying to ban magazines is even more fruitless than trying to ban guns, and I see “readily modified” as an intermediate term, leading to “can be modified”. I don’t like this progression.
          But thanks for clearing this one up for me.

  10. avatar Silver says:

    Ignore the law. Period. It’s not only morally right, it’s your duty.

  11. avatar Lance says:

    They dont care if its a AR-15 or Remington 870 Shotgun there all assault weapons to fascist Nazi’s Progressive Democrats are.

    1. avatar Peter says:

      Well that kind of is the point we have been trying to make — ALL guns can be considered assault weapons, along with anything else one uses to assault someone.

  12. avatar dwb says:

    the bill would have been easier to challenge and tips without an amendment. oh well. i am similarly ambivalent about the md law.

  13. avatar G.R. Mead says:

    Government exists for the purposes of collective self-defense from enemies, and the unpeaceable lawbreakers — that part the ruling class got right. However, self-defense is a natural individual right — and the aid of others in defense is something that depends on them having the same individual rights to exercise together.

    What we are seeing is the exposing of two deep flaws in the ruling class thinking — that a right can be eliminated individually and yet enjoyed collectively. It is a logical impossibility — and self-defeating. To the extent they succeed, they must fail. But it is a failure with a cost – disabling self-defense for millions specifically – and enabling thugs generally.

    The second flaw is that the reaction by people of ordinary sense is to disregard and actively evade a manifestly wicked and foolish “law.” Rule of law erodes and all laws become progressively less observed– and less trusted. All laws become tainted with the same suspicion of an arbitrary dictate — and obedience to law without direct enforcement becomes a thing of the past. Without the rule of law, strong-arm rule is all that is left.

    So they lead us to a world where our choices end up being between the thugs or the tyrants — where the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. As it ever was, until, for a brief time in England until 1920 and then for one bright day here in 1789, and until now. That day that may never come again. We look now in vain for men in public service to be worthy of that day — and find instead those who would publicly demean victims who just wanted not to be punished for having the means to defend themselves in the first place.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      While I agree with your theorem that government exists for the purpose of collective self-defense, I don’t agree that it is logically impossible to ban individual rights yet maintain a collective “right.” In small, more rural and undeveloped societies, yes indeed, the people banded to gether for mutual aid; but in organized societies, the ruler/monarch/government monopolizes power by eliminating the participation of the People in the common defense; it monopolizes the army and the police, gathering the power of collective defense onto itself and its appointed minions, making individual disarmament not only feasible but, from the governments perspective, desireable.

  14. The funny thing about laws is this:
    They only have as much power as people are willing to give them.

    Laws do not establish morality, and the more any group needs to make of them, the less influence and authority that group really has.

    Try to enforce this and watch what happens.

  15. avatar jwm says:

    I wonder if any fudds are waking up to the threat? This isn’t just about EBR’s and hi cap pistols. They’re actually coming for your favorite hunting shotguns now.

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