Since most AR's come with magazines larger than 15 rounds has Colorado effectively implemented an assault weapons ban? I doubt manufacturers will make special versions of AR's with 15 round magazines for sale in Colorado. Does this mean you can no longer buy or sell AR's (or any weapon with a mag > 15) in Colorado after the law takes effect or does only affect magazines on their own and not those coupled with a gun.
Will CO mag ban law affect sales of AR's?
- Thread starter erock7625
- Start date
- Status
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
.
Same with NY. What gun company makes 10 round standard mags for pistols?
.
Same with NY. What gun company makes 10 round standard mags for pistols?
.
Thank the last AWB for the popularity of the .40. When it went into effect, all the 9mm guns were easily converted to .40, and a .40 hi-cap gun would hold right around 10 anyway, so people started buying those instead of the 9mm. Nobody wants a big 9mm that's been neutered.
CoRoMo
Member
Post July 1, the dealers can't legally transfer an included 30-round mag with the rifle. I also don't think dealers will legally be allowed to order/receive such a rifle after that date because they would be in new possession of a mag after that date.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that they can (after July 1) legally remove the mag from the package either; for two reasons actually. One would be that that retail individual, that employee would immediately be in possession, newly acquired possession, of a prohibited magazine after that date. But also, just as a dealer -who is not licensed to manufacture- can't add sling studs to a rifle, can't add a scope, also can't remove a mounted scope from a packaged rifle, can't install a new barrel or cut an inch off the end of an existing shotgun barrel, they might also be prohibited from removing a mag from the package without it being considered 'manufacturing'.
But this isn't isolated to AR rifles and their included mags. Any Glock pistol, even with a 15 round mag, will be prohibited from transfer because of the existence of extension floor-plates. They all become prohibited 'readily convertible' mags.
Bravo Hickenlooper and the legislators who wrote this.
Furthermore, I'm not sure that they can (after July 1) legally remove the mag from the package either; for two reasons actually. One would be that that retail individual, that employee would immediately be in possession, newly acquired possession, of a prohibited magazine after that date. But also, just as a dealer -who is not licensed to manufacture- can't add sling studs to a rifle, can't add a scope, also can't remove a mounted scope from a packaged rifle, can't install a new barrel or cut an inch off the end of an existing shotgun barrel, they might also be prohibited from removing a mag from the package without it being considered 'manufacturing'.
But this isn't isolated to AR rifles and their included mags. Any Glock pistol, even with a 15 round mag, will be prohibited from transfer because of the existence of extension floor-plates. They all become prohibited 'readily convertible' mags.
Bravo Hickenlooper and the legislators who wrote this.
NavyLCDR
member
They will just ship their California compliant models to Colorado.
CoRoMo
Member
Hmmm!! News to me. What do these middlemen dealers do and for what types of firearms?
AlexanderA
Member
The first Colt AR-15's, back in the 1960's, came with magazines that were blocked to 5 rounds, with a block could be removed. Later, Colt put a pop-rivet through the floorplate into the spacer so that it could be removed only by drilling out the rivet. Still later, the spacer was made completely non-removable. Depending on the interpretation of the Colorado law, some or all of these ideas could be resurrected.
There is the downside of supply and demand.
With state specific models the market for those objects is reduced and so the price to the consumer is often increased since they cannot simply turn to the larger more competitive market.
This has been the case in CA for awhile with some things. If you wanted certain guns you had to go for the CA compliant model. Even though some guy in Mississippi might have a similar gun for less he is trying to sell, you can't purchase it because it's not CA compliant, the dealer charges some excessive out of state transfer fee, or if it can be made compliant some middle man would have to do it and finding them costs time, and money, and the middle man wants to profit adding cost.
Even if you can you can do it and it would still be worth your time, someone in the process may feel uncomfortable with it, not wanting to get into trouble dealing with such a complicated mess, adding more headache.
All of it means a more complicated market that often costs the consumer more. While when what you can have is similar to what others can have at the national level you buy and sell from the national market with all the competition that drives down prices.
The result is many similar firearms in CA cost more. Some in CO will likely start costing more if extra work has to be done or specific models are needed. But a magazine restriction alone shouldn't create that situation because the same underlying firearm model can be sold.
I am often annoyed browsing other state's firearm prices. They are typically $100-$200 less than in CA (of course maintaining a storefront costs more in CA), and some models that are comparable and even less expensive are unavailable because they are non compliant, don't comply in stock condition, or are not on the permited pistol list.
To import them many FFLs charge nearly $100 to transfer (they don't really want to encourage people to purchase cheaper elsewhere), they have to be made complaint before import, costing more, and then you have shipping charges. Bringing the gun you can't even touch and inspect before purchase up to the costs of the one you can purchase locally.
This means it is typically better to just buy the local one than the good deal for hundreds less from out of state.
With state specific models the market for those objects is reduced and so the price to the consumer is often increased since they cannot simply turn to the larger more competitive market.
This has been the case in CA for awhile with some things. If you wanted certain guns you had to go for the CA compliant model. Even though some guy in Mississippi might have a similar gun for less he is trying to sell, you can't purchase it because it's not CA compliant, the dealer charges some excessive out of state transfer fee, or if it can be made compliant some middle man would have to do it and finding them costs time, and money, and the middle man wants to profit adding cost.
Even if you can you can do it and it would still be worth your time, someone in the process may feel uncomfortable with it, not wanting to get into trouble dealing with such a complicated mess, adding more headache.
All of it means a more complicated market that often costs the consumer more. While when what you can have is similar to what others can have at the national level you buy and sell from the national market with all the competition that drives down prices.
The result is many similar firearms in CA cost more. Some in CO will likely start costing more if extra work has to be done or specific models are needed. But a magazine restriction alone shouldn't create that situation because the same underlying firearm model can be sold.
I am often annoyed browsing other state's firearm prices. They are typically $100-$200 less than in CA (of course maintaining a storefront costs more in CA), and some models that are comparable and even less expensive are unavailable because they are non compliant, don't comply in stock condition, or are not on the permited pistol list.
To import them many FFLs charge nearly $100 to transfer (they don't really want to encourage people to purchase cheaper elsewhere), they have to be made complaint before import, costing more, and then you have shipping charges. Bringing the gun you can't even touch and inspect before purchase up to the costs of the one you can purchase locally.
This means it is typically better to just buy the local one than the good deal for hundreds less from out of state.
Last edited:
C.F. Plinker
Member
From the Colorado Law:
(b) "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE" DOES NOT MEAN:
7 (I) A FEEDING DEVICE THAT HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY ALTERED SO
8 THAT IT CANNOT ACCOMMODATE MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF
9 AMMUNITION;
If the owner installs a block that reduces the capacity to 15 rounds and fixes it in place with a pop rivet is that considered permanent?
Ahh, see now you start down the path of courtroom drama that creates case law of what is and is not permanent and otherwise defines such things that are ambiguous.
It will fluctuate and change for awhile based on arrests and case law and probably be a few years before you can say with certainty what is legally permanent under CO law.
CA has been dealing with such crap for awhile, so knows what is and is not compliaint and how to work within and around the more established definitions.
You could assume such things that render one compliant in another state will work, but CO won't have the case law setting precedent to back it up.
Last edited:
El Tejon
Member
I've never purchased an AR that came with a mag.
I would imagine that FFLs will simply remove the mags from the AR boxes and sell them on-line.
I would imagine that FFLs will simply remove the mags from the AR boxes and sell them on-line.
Really a magazine is not a huge deal for a common firearm like an AR with a lot of magazine options at competitive prices.
Where things get tricky is more unique firearms with less common magazines.
Less common rifles with detachable magazines.
Many pistol models only have magazines in certain capacities. Getting that pistol without a magazine may turn it into a useless object. If you then have to try and purchase an expensive or impossible to find magazine...
Or finding that while there is tons of inexpensive high quality surplus magazines at highly competitive prices for a firearm type, they are in capacities above what you can have. While what is available in capacities you can have are cheaper quality less reliable magazines that cost even more.
So those inexpensive high quality military surplus magazines you would much rather have sit out of reach and you try to find a more expensive magazine that won't jam on you.
Where things get tricky is more unique firearms with less common magazines.
Less common rifles with detachable magazines.
Many pistol models only have magazines in certain capacities. Getting that pistol without a magazine may turn it into a useless object. If you then have to try and purchase an expensive or impossible to find magazine...
Or finding that while there is tons of inexpensive high quality surplus magazines at highly competitive prices for a firearm type, they are in capacities above what you can have. While what is available in capacities you can have are cheaper quality less reliable magazines that cost even more.
So those inexpensive high quality military surplus magazines you would much rather have sit out of reach and you try to find a more expensive magazine that won't jam on you.
rodregier
Member
And several people will have to be involuntary victims of the "justice" system,
bleeding treasure to establish that case law...
bleeding treasure to establish that case law...
Blackbeard
Member
It will depend on how the courts interpret "readily convertible". Is it readily convertible if you don't possess an extension? I could argue that it is not. I don't want to be the first test case, though.
smalls
Member
This. Manufacturers aren't just going to stop shipping to CO, they'll just modify what it ships with.
Zak Smith
Member
The law exempts licensed dealers so presumably they could just remove any included mags and sell them out of state.
- Status
