magpul leaves colorado

“A bill is being considered, with some Democratic support, to expand the current magazine limit to 30 rounds,” cbs.local.com reports. Notice the “with some Democratic support” bit. Blogger Dominic Dezzutti is framing the dilemma facing Rocky Mountain State gun rights advocates: support a law doubling the current ammunition magazine capacity limit to 30 rounds or insist on a complete repeal. Funny thing is, Colorado’s Democrat Governor, John Hickenlooper, will probably veto either option – although the Hickester’s done more waffling on gun rights issues than your average Denny’s chef does in a single day. So this is how it looks . . .

Jon Caldara [President of the Independence Institute] sees this as important progress on an issue. It’s not the last step in the battle, but getting the magazine limit doubled is certainly a positive step.

RMGO [Rocky Mountain Gun Owners] couldn’t disagree more. In fact, for the RMGO, it’s either a full repeal of the magazine limit or nothing. So, the RMGO is against the expansion of the limits because it’s not a full repeal.

This battle highlights the question, when is refusing to accept a compromise sticking to your principles and when is it simply cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face?

RMGO has made no secret of its purist principles, but could refusing to support the doubling of the magazine limit to 30 rounds, which is the industry standard for many assault style guns, actually be harmful for its cause?

What’s your take? Should Coloradans stick to their guns, I mean, unlimited ammunition magazines, or compromise to start the roll-back on Colorado’s 15-round magazine limit?

129 Responses to Colorado: Double Magazine Capacity Limit or Complete Repeal?

    • This is why the liberals are so good at making progress toward their goals. They’re willing to play the long game.

      Fooling around with an all or nothing mentality isn’t going to get us anywhere. I’ll take a small step forward over nothing, every day.

      No, it shouldn’t be a question because it never should’ve become law in the first place.

      But this is the hand we’ve been dealt. Now, you can piss and moan and stamp your feet, but the reality is that a full repeal just isn’t politically feasible right now.

      So, why would you choose to stay put, rather than taking a small step forward? It’s not like this is the end of the line, but we should be smart enough to take progress anywhere we can get it because the all or nothing approach, for better or worse, RARELY works.

      • The liberals win because people like you that can’t stand and hold to their principles.
        They win because they divide us.

        • ^^^ this.
          Taking a “small step” forward after have taken two steps back, is loosing game in any order you take those steps.

        • I beg your pardon, but you don’t have the slightest clue how I stand by my principles.

          I fight tooth and nail to defend our freedoms, both at the ballot box and in other ways.

          But the fact of the matter is that some battles we lose, despite our efforts. And when that happens, you have to evaluate the best course of action.

          So in the case of Colorado, would it be best to endure two more years with a 15 round capacity in place and then try to repeal it once they’ve had a chance to stack the legislature in favor of the Second Amendment?

          Or should they try to double the limit now, and then still push a repeal later down the road when it actually stands a chance?

          You and I have the same goals. The difference is that I’m willing to take small steps forward to get there, rather than enduring laws I despise until somehow magically enough influence appears to change everything all at once.

        • Rolling the 15-round ban back to 30 would be a big win. While it may not be the final victory in this fight, gun owners would be better off in terms of magazine capacity and no worse off than they were before as a result.

          There is nothing wrong with an incremental approach or in accepting political reality when formulating strategy. After all, would you really oppose a bill to remove silencers from the NFA because the bill doesn’t also include machine guns? Would we really have been better off if back in ’94, the NRA didn’t push for a 10-year sunset provision in the AWB as part of a compromise? Would we really have been better off if in the late ’80s and early ’90s we demanded constitutional carry instead of “compromising” with shall-issue concealed carry? I don’t think so.

          For years now, we have been winning on every front, at the state level, the federal level, and in the courts. A slow and steady approach has change things dramatically over the last decade. Being an unyielding absolutist has gotten us very little.

        • AnonInWA:

          No liberals always lose (sic the steady, fervent, and concerted push-back) although they don’t care, and attempt to drag us into their more-littered eventuality anyway, we just have to wake you and everyone else to the fact and break the cycle. Take the red pill.

          Gun grab via mag grab are equally heinous, when America caves in their authority will pre-decease it (these will be the last to know but the first hunted).

        • Of course, I want a complete repeal of this in Colorado. I want everyone that voted for this kicked out office and in jail. I want more recalls. I want more stunning wins despite being outspent by the opposition. But, this is where we are. Take every incremental win. Use every tool at our disposal.

          Most importantly we need to change the game. I don’t know how to do this in that environment. Suggestions anybody?

      • Armchair Command’oh has it pegged. The way we lost the battle for gun rights throughout the 20th century was through incrementalism. The way we have been getting it back over the last 25 years has been via that same path; incrementalism.
        Imagine where we would be if the Right-to-Carry movement’s cry had been “Vermont Carry or Bust!” We might have picked up a few States; but, we wouldn’t have achieved a Right-to-Carry in the form of Shall-Issue in all but 10 States.
        This compromise – 15 to 30 – is an edge case; I’ll concede this point. If the compromise were 15 to 16 I’d join with the absolutists; too little gain. If it were 15 to 20, I’d reluctantly reach the same conclusion; to little gain. From 15 to 30 – is “standard capacity” good-enough?
        How much better would 15 to 45 or 15 to 60 or 15 to 100 be? To the absolutist, nothing short of no-restriction whatsoever would be acceptable. That’s a cut-off-your-nose kind of argument; it denies the political reality of incrementalism.
        The great majority of magazines are “standard capacity”; i.e., 30 rounds. Why do they call it “standard”? IF (a big IF) the bill raising the limit to 30 were passed, that would be a substantive victory. The gun-rights side would roll-back the infringement to a point (30) which was “standard” before the infringement was applied. Think about the demoralizing impact on the Antis.
        Hear they fought the battle using money and time and favors exchanged only to have lost all the ground they had gained to a roll-back to – roughly – where things stood before they expended their resources. Moreover, in a future legislative session they face the likelihood of a further roll-back from 30 to 60 and then 60 to 90 and eventually a repeal of any limit at all.
        Suppose the roll-back to 30 doesn’t pass. Now, who is it that was unwilling to compromise?

      • I get what your saying. The Liberals will take a small win over a big loss. They incrementally taken away our freedoms over the course of decades.

        While we’ve had some big wins, some small wins instead of a complete loss would be nice as well.

        I think the reason why people are so negative about your suggestion is because of the tendency for gun rights to “compromise”, which means we lose and they win. It’s those compromises that saw our rights incrementally legislated away. Now it’s our turn to make the anti’s “compromise” even if it means we don’t get everything we want right away.

        I’m all for employing their tactics against them.

      • All that needs to happen is that the legislators and and lobbyists need to go on record saying, “We believe that there should be a full repeal of the magazine capacity limits. In the mean time, we will accept this partial repeal of magazine restrictions, but plan to work towards our intended goal in the future.”

        Simple as that. Win the battle, work on winning the war.

        • Glock 17 mags would also continue to be illegal unless we fight to get this foot hold of 30 rounds. then keep fighting for better capacity mags.

    • We’ve got a mountain of evidence that proves that mag limits just don’t do any good. In fact it’s far more common that having lots of ammo capacity is a major boon. And that’s not even touching the fact that the man who is the reason we have this law was using a pump shotgun as well as an AR.

    • First, it’s not compromise; it’s progress. For it to be a compromise, the pro-gun crowd would have to lose something. They already lost a couple years ago.
      Second, how is this bad? By your logic:
      * Texans shouldn’t support the licensed open carry law that’s in the legislature this session, because it’s not a total repeal of government regulation.
      * Californians shouldn’t support a move to shall issue in the courts, because it’s not total elimination.
      * We shouldn’t support removing SBRs or suppressors from NFA regulation, because it’s not a full repeal of the NFA.

      Any bill with the sole effect of reducing the number of banned firearms (or accessories) is good.
      Any bill with the sole effect of reducing the restrictions on buying, owning, or carrying a firearm is good.

    • Like a gambler who wins money but just does not know when to quit and leaves empty your all or nothing attitude will lead to no changes.

      Quitting well one is ahead is not dishonorable and one can work from there to improve things.

    • I’m curious if people with the no compromise mentality pooped on every step made toward concealed carry? Did you write letters to representatives saying “Constutional carry or nothing! I’d rather be completely disarmed than be able to only legally carry concealed”.

  1. I am all for a complete repeal, but I will take progress. Get the limit increased, then go for repeal. Baby steps. It isn’t right, but it’s forward progress.

      • going with this compromise isn’t getting back to the starting line…that would e a full repeal, and no limits. Instead, Coloradans are being asked to see this compromise as an acceptable middle ground on an unenforceable ridiculous law that has achieved nothing other than to drive a couple of high profile businesses from the state.

        Chuck this damn bad law out on it’s ear…it deserves nothing less.

        • “an unenforceable ridiculous law that has achieved nothing other than to drive a couple of high profile businesses from the state.”

          Don’t forget the recalls.

          The recalls in Colorado represent a big vote for the “no compromise” camp.

          Tell the sitting legislature: repeal the stupid magazine limits or face recall. In other words, do your REAL JOB of “representation” (rather than whatever passes for the definition of the word in the minds of most politicians) or we will find someone who will do it.

    • I had the exact same thought as Cochetope.

      At least a 30 round limitation on magazines (while utterly unconstitutional of course) covers the most popular magazines for AR-15 platform rifles as well as some of the handgun magazines — like standard 17 round magazines for some 9mm pistols as well as extended 20, 22, and 29 round magazines for other pistol calibers.

      • Again–that being the case, how many people are likely to be completely satisfied with the “new” limit and drop out of the repeal push altogether? It’s something to think about.

        • I see your point with people dropping out of support. I for one, would keep pushing for the full repeal. I know several others who would continue to push for full repeal. Remember, we already recalled two “representives” who didn’t agree.

          Upping the limit for now would be a huge push for me, because it is cramping my purchasing options, like my Tavor and several pistols I would like, but can’t have due to some silly limit.

  2. Double the size now, repeal later. Full repeal won’t happen while the dems hold the house and govrners mansion.

    • Yeah, why not submit both bills? Write them so that if the limit-repeal bill passes, it invalidates the 30-round limit bill. People should vote for both bills, and if the limit-repeal bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass and the 30-round limit bill still passes because it has a few more supporters, then the people are at least better off and can try for a full repeal again in the future.

      • We submitted 2 bills for repeal (1 house 1 senate), both were sent to the Democrat designated kill committee and killed. I don’t know if the 30 round thing is just vaporware or what, this is the first I’ve heard of it.

    • Definitely. That’s how Kansas got from no concealed carry to constitutional carry. We need to chisel away at (unconstitutional) restrictions the way the gun banners chisel away at our rights. Every time we win a bit and blood doesn’t run in the streets, we are in a better position to get more.

      • Bingo. Kansas is a great example of how incremental progress can eventually lead to the final goal.

        Kansas didn’t have concealed carry AT ALL in 2005. They finally got a law passed in 2006. If they’d insisted on pushing for constitutional carry then they would probably have gotten nothing.

        Now, in 2015, as of July 1, they WILL have constitutional carry. They took what they could get back then, and then pushed for more later … and they got it.

  3. Repeal. “Shall not be infringed”.

    Now, if only most of the repubs that run here weren’t complete wackos that I could vote for in good conscience…

      • Correction the full repeal (SB175) WAS killed in committee by Sen Salazar, never was a chance of it seeing Hickelooper’s desk.

    • Any form of “gun control” is simply just people control. Who wants to be controlled by their elected officials? Repeal or give them the rope.

  4. If the original limit was for safety, and it worked, don’t change it.

    If data show a different round count is safer, change it to that.

    Otherwise, doubling it just replaces one arbitrary number with another, bigger arbitrary number. So in that case, admit it and just repeal.

    Note: while my argument implicitly concedes that limits may have been set in the ostensible interest of feeling safery (sic), I do not believe they aid safety and, more importantly, view them as an implicit infringement. That’s not the point here; I’m attempting to construct a put-up-or-shut-up argument vice the banners.

    • No. It decriminalizes 99% of the magazines on the market. Why should we continue to allow the state to ban 99% of the magazines just to save the rare 100rd drums. We should take what we can get then fight for more later.

      • Simply, capricious laws should not be on the books.

        Doesn’t matter if under the law 1% or 99% of the mags are legal. If there’s no demonstrable social benefit to the law, it shouldn’t be there – all constitutional issues aside, it’s just sloppy lawmaking.

        • >> Simply, capricious laws should not be on the books.

          There’s no realistic way to pass a repeal now, so the “capricious law” will stay on the books either way.

    • There’s no data supporting magazine capacity restrictions. If there was it would obviously taper off to zero capacity which is what an anti gunner would try to do to ban all modern firearms.

      • Exactly – and the burden of proof that the law is necessary should be met in order to pass the law, or prevent repeal of an existing law.

        The can’t show it helps, so the law should be repealed. Simple as that.

        • The judge who reviewed this law after our sheriff’s association sued said basically that laws don’t have to be proven to support the public good and don’t even have to have any justifiable reason to claim that they would support the public good. I guess that laws in CO fall somewhere below Rational Basis Review on the scrutiny scale.

    • The tyrants current excuse for mag limits is that leftist, Californian who thought he was the Joker, shooting up that gun free zone in Aurora. Apparently he had a 100 round magazine of something. 15 was always an arbitrary, pulled out of Bloombergs butt, number, there are no 15 round AR magazines that I’ve ever seen and a frustrating number of normal capacity pistol magazines are over 15. If we are supposed to believe that our wise and just tyrants want to protect us from 100 round magazines the limit should always have been 30.

      I want the bill of rights apply to me but if I can’t have that, I would like for the government to not screw with me. The law is stupid and not enforced by any CO agency and I can walk down to a store in CO and buy whatever magazine (parts kit) I want, but it means out of state people don’t want to sell me magazines. A 30 round limit is wrong in principle, but in practice, would let me live my life without the government bothering me. I want my rights, I will fight for my rights, but which is better for me Dudley Brown pounding his chest for a repeal he can’t have till we get rid of some more Dems or the government leaving me alone for a while? The fight is never over but maybe a 30 round limit would give the Dems a chance to fix what they did without actually admitting they are wrong.

      I’m a CO resident and sometimes an RMGO member.

      • Bloomberg pulled a 7-round limit out of his butt, not 15. I believe the inspiration came from what his boyfriend had been putting in.

        • Newsflash: that 7 round limit was given to him by Kimber. They saw an opportunity to make money and they took it.

  5. Wow, it wouldn’t allow me to edit a comment after 10 seconds. Anywho you are too late on this. This bill was killed yesterday along with the other gun bills. Absolutely nothing is going to happen on this front this year.

  6. It has to be all or nothing. If they accept a 30 round limit enough people will be satisfied. This would leave only a small number left to fight for 31+ round magazines.

  7. Repeal or nothing. I’m sure we have all seen the video of the CO representative thinking that the “high capacity magazine clips” were a one time use thing then you throw them away. This is what we are fighting against??

  8. “…This battle highlights the question, when is refusing to accept a compromise sticking to your principles and when is it simply cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face?”

    Here is an easy test for that question….. Are you being asked to ‘compromise’ in order to have some part of something that was yours to begin with returned to you?

    Here is an example of that test: A thief has stolen your wallet. Would you compromise to get your ID’s returned to you but not the rest of your wallet or its contents?

    If you need a different (and much better) example, here is the story of gun rights expressed in the form of cake: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

  9. Repeal. Existing law even banned purchase and sale of antique magazines for an original Gatling Gun and $1500 Luger drum mags from 1917. Utterly stupid.

  10. Dudley Brown is a dud.

    Yeah, why take a 30-round limit that would allow 99% of magazines to be legal while we work on repealing it altogether? After all, it’s not perfect.

    Don’t let perfect be the enemy of (much) better.

    Best of all, Dudley Brown can raise money for people who don’t know any better until the full repeal is implemented, while contributing nothing aside from the occasional rhetorical hand grenade into Colorado politics.

    Aside from some open carry boneheads, Dudley Brown is pretty much an enemy to regaining our rights.

    Here’s an idea Dudley: If your purist beliefs are so pure, then you restrain yourself to the 15 round limit after the rest of us take advantage of that limit moved to 30.

    John

  11. I’m not seeing this as black-and-white at all. If you can get the grabbers to give back an inch–even after they have taken a mile–you have done something good, and perhaps set something of a legislative precedent. So doubling capacity is good. OTOH, I can’t help but think that if the state sets the standard at 30, it will take a lot–a LOT– of the steam out of the movement to repeal. Lots of semi-Fudd-like folks out there, who might push for repeal of a 10-round limit, could be perfectly satisfied with a “standard” limit and drop out of the fight. Complicating the situation is my understanding that the mag limit is full of loopholes, practically impossible to enforce, and thus not really having much effect other than to drive some businesses out of Colorado. Given that, I would say that there is not much cost to the pro-2A side in standing firm for full repeal

  12. Usually would go with the ‘stick to your guns’ approach but as of now getting the capacity to 30 would really help those in Colorado. Being able to obtain standard capacity magazines (as i don’t think magpul makes 15 rounders and if they do there aren’t very much of them) would really help. Maybe take this on the chin and get it to 30 then 5 years down the road when there hasn’t been blood in the streets as a result of the increase, get a bill passed for unlimited. In short, try and play the long game.

  13. A 30 round limit seems like paradise. Since CT changed the law after Sandy Hook, it’s been incredibly frustrating trying to get one’s hands on new or interesting pistols. I was in Cabellas yesterday, and was told that Cabell’s purchases handguns nationally and has not bothered to try to get any Sig 320s with reduced capacity mags. Some on-line sellers (Grabagun.com, AIM Surplus) will pull the mags and ship the gun to your local FFL (and AIM actually gives you a price break to compensate, in part, for the lost mags), but then you’re scouring the internet looking for the appropriate crippled mags, at additional expense and wasted time, and then some online sellers won’t send ANY mags to CT, even the crippled ones – CDNN Sports and Natchez, you suck.

    Even though CT had a weak AW Ban prior to Sandy Hook, the post-Sandy Hook changes are just making the whole buisness a lot less fun, which I supose was the goal.

    Anyway, Colarado gunnies should take the deal, and then when conditions are better push for full repeal. The Antis understand incrementalism and reneging on compromises – it’s time we learned.

    • Going out to all the online seller that won’t sell to people in CO even if the product would be legal, and to all the sellers that put a 30 round mag in with an AR and then say “won’t modify orders to comply with state laws”: YOU SUCK I’ve got enough FASCISTS telling me what I can and can’t do, I don’t need you.

  14. Gov. Hickenlooper will veto 30. I would push to increase from 15 to 20, which will cover most common handguns and which he might accept, since he was willing to work in the 10 to 20 range back in 2013 or whenever they passed that bill. This may seem like an awful idea, but he has the veto pen. Unless Colorado can be expected to become more Republican in the future, I would go for what one can get right now.

  15. If the anti-rights crowd can be content with chipping away, we can be content going the other way.

    Is it what we want? Not really, but it’s progress, and nothing’s stopping us from trying to take more back next session. There’s no reason to throw away progress just because it’s not enough.

  16. When the NRA liaison in Illinois was testifying for concealed carry a few years ago he mentioned he’d be ok with a fee for concealed carry when there was a fee to vote. I wish they would have stuck to those principles, but alas.

    • This is a good rhetorical argument to assert; nevertheless, the objective should be to make some progress. I live 2 miles from the NJ border. I’d love for NJ to adopt a Shall-Issue law even with an onerous fee and training requirement. If they did, I’d meet it; and, so would lots of others.
      I’ll grant you that Shaneen Allen couldn’t afford to meet an onerous requirement. Even so, neither Shaneen nor I can carry in NJ so the Won’t-Issue policy persists. And, it will continue to persist until something major happens such as a National Reciprocity bill passes Congress or SCOTUS rules on right-to-carry.

  17. The issue is one of principle. You have a better argument that setting any limit is an infringement. Whereas arguing about the number of rounds that is fair is coming across as just a tantrum about the number of toys that you are allowed.
    The moment that you accepted any number you just signed on the idea that setting a number is not an infringement.
    The success is achieved by people that know to delay the reward if the reward is worth it. In the age of instant reward I can see why people want to increase the number of rounds now. There is no upside to that. Today people can have 30 rounds mags as the law is unenforceable in regard to when the magazine was purchased.

  18. There are quite a few I support the 2A but’s showing. You should probably hike up your pants.

    Shall not be infringed.

  19. Knee-jerk stupidity becomes law in a few weeks.
    Repealing said knee-jerk stupidity takes years or decades.

    It really should be the opposite.

    • Enjoy your 15-round limit. Refusal to compromise works when you are doing that from a position of strength. This is something that pro-gun activists in Colorado don’t really have.

  20. As as lifetime Coloradan and an avid gun enthusiast, I know exactly how stupid and obtrusive the magazine ban is. Compromise is necessary!!! We need to 0 lay the long game! RMGO is a wonderful organization but despite the fact that I see them at my favorite range shooting their videos and I drive by their office three times a week, I’m not a member. The No Compromise movement is a bullheaded and surefire way to get good ol’ Hick to Veto any and every chance of getting rid of this pointless legislation! Let’s be realist, folks; being the stubborn, whiney kid on the playground hasn’t worked too well for us, has it? Let’s take our gains and regroup for another attack.

    • Actually it worked very well. When POTG stood united in opposing something we always win. When we accept any compromise we always loose.

  21. This is the totalitarian way to control people. I remember the way the communist used to promote a further restriction: for example, they will launch a rumor that they will increase the price of sugar with 200%. Everybody will get riled up, people were talking about taking to the streets and so on. When the official increase came it was just 50%. People were happy and celebrating, you know wasn’t that bad.
    This is exactly like some of you are doing: hey is better, now the restriction is 30 not 15. But they fail to see that the restriction, once accepted, is subject to change at any time.

  22. My understanding is the mag cap limit is widely ignored. Push for full repeal. Accepting the 30 limit gives bad laws legitimacy. I’d rather colorado residents flagrantly ignore a stupid and unenforced law. When no blood flows in the streets people will see how dumb the law is.

  23. The idea that people will be safer with magazines limited to 15 rounds is absurd enough but now I am to believe people will remain in a Goldilocks zone of safety if people only have wee little 30 round magazines. So it will make most magazines legal when all of them should be legal. The entire argument about safety is a lie and the law is one of the already abundant infringements on the 2A that should have never been and needs to go.

  24. They should put a sign on the CO gov mansion “Waffle House”

    Seriously, this is a choice between better and best. Only idiots in the gun rights community would let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  25. The biggest problem is not the choice of number for the capacity limit, it’s the highly limited grandfather clause.

    Right now I’m allowed to own and use the >15 round magazines I owned before the ban was enacted, but I cannot sell, lend, or give them to other Coloradans, or even pass them on to my heirs.

    I would certainly like the limit to be raised to 30 as that would reverse all the damage that’s been done to USPSA Limited and Open in this state. But I can’t, on principle, support pursuing that as a goal.

    For what it’s worth, when I and a group of other competitive shooters met with Hickenlooper’s staff (he declined to meet with us in person) in the run-up to the ban, they asked if there was another number we’d be comfortable with. For them, this is pure politics. They were looking for a measure that they could enact and get an image boost from. They were entirely uninterested in whether such a measure would be effective at reducing crime in general or preventing another Columbine or Aurora Century.

    Likewise the handful of Democratic state senators we met with all failed to *think* about the issue in the slightest, and just repeated the standard platitudes about hunters and background checks and so on. My own state senator, Andy Kerr, had the gall to send an email to his mailing list afterwards explaining his vote for the ban and background check bill, justifying those votes on the ground that they would reduce crime and keep guns out the hands of bad people. This, despite the meeting we had with him in which we explained why these things would NOT happen, and in which he at least appeared to listen and think (somewhat to his credit). Ultimately though he is a politician and politicians of both parties in the state legislature tend to vote party-line on everything.

    • You are kinda incorrect on a couple things. The sheriffs and DA’s have always said it is perfectly legal to lend out a magazine as long as there is the expectation that it will be returned in a “reasonable” about of time and passing them to heirs is also legal as long as it is immediate family(immediate family can co-own property in CO and is therefor not a transfer). It is not spelled out in the law, but everyone who can enforce it has said so.

      • MY sheriff says that, aside from being unconstitutional, the law is so poorly written that there is no possible way for anyone to actually to enforce it. The burden of proof is on the state, so anyone in possession of any magazine can say “I had this before July 4, 2013, prove I didn’t”. Short of surveillance footage from the Walmart in Cheyenne, how are they supposed to prove it? And no, magazines do not have serial numbers or data codes. The law requires that new magazines manufactured in the state have serial numbers but Magpul left so there are no magazine manufacturers in CO.

      • Those interpretations are non-binding and can be changed at any time.

        Until the law is tested in court and case law established, we’ll never really know.

  26. Full repeal is what’s right, and that condition exists a state over with no issues or mayhem.

    However, better to have hamburger today than only the possibility of filet migon tomorrow. Of course, in this case, the hamburger is not guaranteed, just more possible. But just because you are eating hamburger today doesn’t mean you stop working towards obtaining steak. Or does it? The downside to hamburger to day is that may people will INDEED stop working towards steak because they will be satisfied by the hamburger, so you lose supporters.

  27. Since rights are now negotiable, let’s double a whole bunch of them. While we’re doubling magazine capacity from 15 to 30, let’s also double the maximum wheelchair ramp height from 30 to 60 inches, double the income level necessary to qualify for Section 8, and let’s double the quota of white people that have to be hired under Affirmative Action policies.

  28. The first few steps out of the woods involve still being in the woods.
    Progress is made more often by degree, than by sweeping fiat. Incrementalism is the same tool the antis have used to win the larger part of their success. How many times have the TTAG readers expressed outrage at the camel’s nose creeping under the tent, after all? This nose is ours.
    Take the compromise for now and don’t give up the fight.

  29. Big box retailers won’t even stock guns from companies like bushmaster of FNH because their rifles ship with 30rd mags. The mag limit isn’t just limiting our access to magazines.

  30. Now I personally would never buy a magazine with more capacity than 30 rounds as I am too poor to afford that amount of ammo. But I would never want to be limited to that by threat of government violence so I would go for a full repeal. Alas, I live in California though so I am limited to 10 rounds with almost no chance of having that law repealed.

  31. Going with the theme “If they can ban one, they can ban them all.” Heard that somewhere.

    If the round limit is expanded, when the next fight comes, the opposition will declare that no one NEEDS a hundred round drum. Legislators will feel comfortable behind that berm so the thirty rounder will be forever but with the precedent that you can “ban one”.

    In this fight for the repeal, no one has to speak directly about the actual round limit but just the principle of government interference in the peoples rights. It may folly to argue what is NEEDED and not what our rights are. This way, you are banning the banning and not choosing a arbitrary number not based on any principle.

    Of course Holmes in the Aurora shooting did use a drum, so CO may have some extra sensitivity. (although its malfunction probably saved a few people.)

  32. This is a tough one.

    On one hand the approval of this measure would restore functionality for 99% of AR owners. And it is a move in the right direction.

    However it is a tacit admission that some level of restrictions are “ok”, so I would say go for it but only if we are ready to then redouble our efforts to have he restriction completely thrown out.

    However, if the fine citizens of Colorado are just going to lean back and claim success at at least making the unconstitutional restriction suck a little less then I say no, they need to push all or nothing.

  33. We had a whole cake. The antis came and demanded half. When we asked what we’d get for it the answer was “Why half a cake of course. That’s reasonable.”

    Now we have the change to get a bit of the cake back. Why not the entire that’s ours?

  34. I don’t live in Colorado, but I view this like the 55 mph speed limit, rammed down everyone’s throats in a political panic in the 1970’s, widely violated, and created the radar detector industry. In my wild dreams, I would love to see no speed limits on non-urban interstates, and tractor trailers and the elderly staying in the right lane. However I am very glad to take the now typical 70 mph, loosely enforced, which really does work for most people. So if I lived in CO, I would take the 30 round magazines; the larger ones are too clumsy for me anyway.

  35. One question: what’s the other side getting out of the double round count bill? That’s what i want to know.

    Is this their litmus test on what we find acceptable and then using it for further nefarious deedsm

  36. Move the ball forward every single day.
    Our political opponents need to know we will scrap and scavenge for any of our rights, and that we won’t be happy until we can safely exercise all of them.

  37. I don’t think standing up for a full repeal is a bad thing. During your normal travels to a more sane state, make a purchase and bring ’em back. Those new magazines are now indistinguishable from all the other magazines you had pre-ban, and no way to prove otherwise (some qualifications apply).

    So, whether it’s a 1-round, 10-round, 30-round, or 50-round limit, what does it matter? They are all just as bad, from a 2A standpoint. Therefore, stand firm and press for a full repeal.

  38. Full repeal should be the ultimate goal. That’s a big No Duh!

    I don’t think anyone here believes otherwise.

    As such any loosening of restrictions is a good thing.

    Compromise gets condemned because we have *lost* so much due to compromising with people making arbitrary demands, giving them half of what they want. They then come back and repeat the process, resulting in a ratchet.

    Why is it bad when the direction of motion is in the good direction? None of the table-pounders here have been able to answer that question satisfactorily, though some of the non-table-pounders have suggested there won’t be much of a consitituency for going from 30 to no restriction. That’s a good point. But given that a 30 round limit would have so little actual effect, its repeal can probably be slipped in somewhere a few years down the road without having to expend a ton of political capital–in other words, it won’t NEED much support to pass.

      • It seems that many of the commenters here imagine that we actually have a choice between the two options here. Given a choice, a 30 round limit would be asinine. But no limit is simply not an option today, so the choice is between a 15 round limit and a 30 round limit. At that point, volunteering to leave the 15 round limit in place is what’s asinine.

  39. After reading some of these comments I can safely say that while standing resolute and demanding a full repeal is good in theory we have to be willing to use the Anti’s tactics against them. They’re willing to play the long game and make incremental gains and yet when you ask a lot of PotG to do the same they balk at the suggestion that it may be a more viable solution to regain what you have incrementally than pressing for full repeal of these laws. The current political realities in CO mean that a full repeal IS NOT happening so the best they can do is aim to increase the limit to 30 rounds and continue to press for full repeal after that. Incremental gains are still gains and we can do more through being willing to make those smaller gains than expecting a massive leap at once.

    • You don’t understand the voting demographics in CO.

      Take 30. then don’t just sit back in the easy chair, keep hammering away. Dudley seems to be all about Dudley.

  40. People who don’t understand how incremental progress with law can lead to the end goal don’t understand how politics works.

    The proposal to change the limit from 15 to 30 does NOTHING bad and does something good. Is it ideal? No, of course not. Does it help? Yes. Does it make it less likely to get a full repeal further on down the line? I doubt it. Does it help restore some rights of people? Absolutely yes. Restoring the legality of the 17 / 19 / 22 / 30 / etc. round magazines is progress.

    This is not a compromise where you give up something awful to get something good (e.g. the national 1986 law). This is an incremental change, where we get something good (but not get all of what we want) and give up nothing. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between a compromise where you have to give up something crappy to get something vs. an incremental change where you give up NOTHING and get something.

    Just look at Kansas – and its progression from NO concealed carry to permitted concealed carry to constitutional carry.

  41. Would you accept a 30 round mag limit on handguns only? Since they are used to commit most crimes?
    What about a 100 round mag limit? I mean we sort of have that right now?
    What about a 30 round limit on box magazines only?
    What about 1000 round limit ? It would save just as many lives as a 30 round.

  42. Actually, after thinking a bit Dudley Brown is just wrong. Changing the limit to 30 would not only change the law to being completely without any effect for most people, it would also make it pretty dependable from a 2nd amendment standpoint. I know, I know, “shall not be infringed”, but US v Miller said ” the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. We all know that “well regulated” meant efficient to 18th century people and reading US v Miller it seems like the 1939 supreme court understood that too. So an M4, or an M16A4, which I already can’t have, are normal infantry weapons that would contribute to the efficiency of the unorganized militia and should be protected. But how about a magazine bigger than 30 rounds? Do they contribute to the efficiency of an unorganized militia? As has been said, people might not care as much if bigger than 30 round magazines are banned because they are just rich guys toys that don’t have much of a useful purpose. Big non-standard magazines, even assuming they’ve worked out the FTF issues, are much more expensive and take up more room in your gear than an equivalent number of normal 30 round mags. I would personally, never buy one simply because I do NOT feel like they would contribute to my effectiveness in an unorganized militia. Call me a “Militia Fudd” if you want, but militia is what it says in the Bill of Rights, hunting is not.

    • >> Big non-standard magazines, even assuming they’ve worked out the FTF issues, are much more expensive and take up more room in your gear than an equivalent number of normal 30 round mags.

      You seem to be thinking about four-stack SureFires, drums and CMags here, but there are also regular 40-rounders which are different from 30-rounders only in being longer. They’re pretty much as reliable, take proportionally more space as you’d expect (and there are many pouches that will fit them nicely), and the only real disadvantage they have is that they force you to keep your head higher when shooting prone.

  43. A lot of out-of-staters commenting with hard-nose BS. The reality is that there is a slim chance of getting back to 30 rounds and a zero chance of full repeal. It’s all but certain that the state senate will be in the Dems hands again after the 2016 election. So there is a narrow window of opportunity to get 99% of the magazines legal again.

    Most of us here stocked up before the ban went into effect. But anyone deciding they want a Glock 17 or similar is SOL for normal capacity…barring a trip across a state boarder for magazines.

    • Yes, even presenting the repeal bills was just the GOP’s way of telling the citizens of CO that they hear us and a way of finding out if the Dems hear us (they don’t). Our path to freedom only lies in our getting rid of our Democrat masters. The problem is that they get piles of out of state money and they play well to the pro abortion, pro gay, save the whales, pot smoking types that inhabit CO, so getting rid of them is tough. If we can get the limit raised to 30 we NEED to get the limit raised to 30.

    • He is NOT a day late.

      What is being discussed here is a new proposal –one the committee hasn’t even SEEN yet — that is being floated, that rather than repeal the ban entirely (which got killed as expected) would relax the limit to 30 rounds. Several democrats have apparently indicated they could support it, and it might get past the kill committee. So the question becomes, should we try this, or stamp our foot and pout and refuse it, because we can’t get the full repeal?

  44. Sometimes you have to settle for a field goal. While it’s not a touchdown, it’s better than zero. Get 30 round mags back. Work for repeal over time. Getting standard capacity mags back is a big loss for the people who voted for the restriction.

  45. All or nothing as an absolute principle is stupid, but it is not stupid in many cases. If a bill to raised the mag limit to 15 in CA had a chance of passing, the smart answer would be to support it, as I would have supported the bill that lowered the waiting time from 14 days to 10 (that bill ended up also establishing legislative intent was that the waiting period served only to allow sufficient time for a background check, by lowering it when technology started to expedite it and hence helped win the court case against the waiting period now)

    But to raise it to thirty, in a state like Colorado, could do harm in that it could remove much impetus and support for gun rights. Those sympathetic, but less committed, and even many gun rights people would feel less urgency and Democrats could point to being a party willing to compromise, etc. Pro gun candidates have a chance at actually taking over the state there, unlike here. So a more absolute stance, at least on highly visible issues, is more advisable.

    • …and walk away with nothing, while the national media shine a spotlight on your failure, and commies everywhere gloat and laugh at your idiocy.

  46. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. I’d take 30 in a moment and then work on repealing magazine capacity limits latter. Its not like you can’t take another bite of the apple a few years latter.

  47. I didn’t read all the comments. After I got half-way down I was wondering what I had done to deserve this Fudd-like treatement. So people think that 99% of mags are 30 or under. Not true. In 3-gun competition they purposefully set up stages at 29, 30, or 31 rounds to make it really hard to use a 30-round mag if you don’t want to do a mag change while prone. So, the solution from MagPull was the wonderful 40-rounder. To me, the arguments to take the incremental win sound very Fudd-like. Who needs more than 30 rounds? Well, those that do competitions often need more than 30 rounds in a single mag to be competitive. It seems that while we may not win this one, we should push for repeal and keep pushing for repeal. Each time we lose, we pick up more steam and bring on more to the cause. A loss is sometimes a great way to stimulate more support. If we take the 30-round mini-win, it will be 30-rounds forever and that will spread to other states. Very bad. Then once other states all have the 30-round limit, they can start ratcheting that back down to 15, then 10, then 7, then 5 (who needs more than 5 rounds to hunt a deer?). The 30-round thing is a strategy by the antis to ultimately defeat us and so many are falling for the trap. Scary!

    • Guess what, Mike, we were defeated! Now its time to win back some ground. The new law isn’t the only unconstitutional one in my state. So Mike, if you can’t repeal them all in one fell swoop, en masse, I guess you’re a sort of FUD too. After all, repealing this one gun law is just a compromise since you can’t repeal them all at the same time.
      Nobody here is a FUD. But I guarantee your side in the argument will walk away bloodied.

  48. As people continue to confuse the prospect of an incremental gain with the prospect of an incremental loss.

  49. This whole exercise is a way to give the Democrats (who voted FOR the magazine limit in the first place) a pro-gun fig leaf to hide behind come election time.

    Almost no police departments bothering to enforce this law, so it is more about political theater than anything else. Posturing, pandering, politicians trying to position themselves to get re-elected.

  50. No “compromise”.

    We shouldn’t have to “compromise” with these slack-jawed, sloped-forehead, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing morons who clearly don’t even know the meaning of the word — who’ve given up NOTHING in return.

    It is only the PotG who even “give” up anything at all in these so-called “compromises”, civil rights that we don’t even have the authority to cede to anyone in the first place!

    • You fail.

      Like so many others here you fail.

      THIS compromise is where THEY give up an existing 15 round limit, in return for a 30 round limit, and they get nothing in return.

      In essence it’s the same shit they do to us all the time, except this time they’d be on the *receiving* end of it.

Leave a Reply

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