"Assault weapon" ban 2025 version

[eddiememphis]

Does that mean as a CO resident you can no longer buy a gun in another state? Your 2A rights are strictly limited to CO?

If you mail order, the FFL that does the transfer is responsible for verification of your eligibility.

From the wording of the bill, all FFLs will have access to the database. So Cabela's in Nebraska will be able to see if you have your permission slip. Will this happen? Probably, at least among the big vendors. They just add another line in the computer.

This is a very clever bill, no doubt.

Watch for it to be introduced in every state over the next few years- at least until the Supreme Court rules on it's constitutionality.

[Drucker]

be what it may, I aim to misbehave

[JohnnyDrama]

In other news....

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1905408375879540761

According to this from Gun Owners of America, the DOJ is going to go after states that are making lawful gun ownership difficult. The article specifically names California but also refers to "other states."

This has been an interesting ride. I wonder how much of this was on the political horizon while 25-003 was being "debated" and what kind of shenanigans were/are in the works.

I don't trust the politicians or the DOJ but that something is on paper is a positive sign.

[TEAMRICO]

be what it may, I aim to misbehaave

I can dig it.

[FoxtArt]

Now that this is far enough along...

I challenge anyone to read this bill and find where it prohibits someone from possessing one of the "bad guns" if they were purchased legally out-of-state at any date... whether prior to the bill, or ...

You'll find that the combination of federal and state laws makes it so that one could not legally buy a handgun out of state, that would have to be shipped to a FFL. This is true wherever you live in the country, you can't, for instance, legally go to Wyoming and get a handgun from a gun store (they would have to ship it to CO). But you COULD get a long gun while vacationing in nearby states.

This bill prohibits the sale and/or transfer subject to exceptions ... inside the borders of Colorado. Hypothetically, if you purchase a long gun in another state, then drive across the border in Colorado, I fail to see anything in this bill, even by a stretch, that would make your drive a crime.

[eddiememphis]

FFLs are required to comply with the laws of both states, not just the one they are doing business in.

25-003 says the database will be available to all FFLs.

Failing to comply with another state’s regulations could be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(b) (unlawful sale or transfer)

[def90]

Now that this is far enough along...

I challenge anyone to read this bill and find where it prohibits someone from possessing one of the "bad guns" if they were purchased legally out-of-state at any date... whether prior to the bill, or ...

You'll find that the combination of federal and state laws makes it so that one could not legally buy a handgun out of state, that would have to be shipped to a FFL. This is true wherever you live in the country, you can't, for instance, legally go to Wyoming and get a handgun from a gun store (they would have to ship it to CO). But you COULD get a long gun while vacationing in nearby states.

This bill prohibits the sale and/or transfer subject to exceptions ... inside the borders of Colorado. Hypothetically, if you purchase a long gun in another state, then drive across the border in Colorado, I fail to see anything in this bill, even by a stretch, that would make your drive a crime.

If you buy a long gun out of state they still follow the laws of your state of residence.

[FoxtArt]

FFLs are required to comply with the laws of both states, not just the one they are doing business in.

25-003 says the database will be available to all FFLs.

Failing to comply with another state’s regulations could be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(b) (unlawful sale or transfer)

Good discussion.

922 is interesting because (a) provides exeptions to something deemed unlawful while (b) lists things that are unlawful. This creates an interesting conundrum.

922(a)(3) (it is unlawful) "For any person...to transport into [the State]... except that this paragraph shall not preclude... ... if it is lawful to purchase OR possess such firearm in that state.
Though purchase/transfer is prohibited without the cards, possession is not. Thus, the declaration of exceptions combined with the "OR" creates an interesting interplay in ?(a).


922(a)(5) Is the same... (it is unlawful) "For any person".... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport.... to any person who the transferrors knows.... does not reside in [the State]... except this paragraph shall not apply to.... a person who is permitted to acquire OR possess a firearm under the laws of the State of residence.


You are probably right with 922(b)(2) because it states the converse "it would be unlawful to sell or deliver.... where the purchase OR possession by such person...". Thus a FFL dealer under plain-text reading of ?922 commits a crime selling a firearm where possession is legal, but acquisition is not.

Arguably, the private party is not necessarily implicated under 922(a)(5) and the CO resident is arguably not implicated by tranporting into their home state under 922(a)(3) as possession is legal. The statute should, more correctly, state "AND OR" in section 922(a). (a person who is permitted to acquire AND OR possess a firearm".

Caveat always applies to this discussion, what is legal is largely hypothetical, at the end of the day, people get prosecuted for whatever a judge and prosecutor doesn't like, the law hardly ever has played into the equation. If they want to get someone, they pretty much always will.

ETA: I'll also add they get to assert legislative intent to read language that isn't even in the law, whenever they want to. Appeals take 9 months to a year and a half with an average remand rate of about 5%., whatever a judge decrees is usuallly a done deal.

[eddiememphis]

Caveat always applies to this discussion, what is legal is largely hypothetical, at the end of the day, people get prosecuted for whatever a judge and prosecutor doesn't like, the law hardly ever has played into the equation. If they want to get someone, they pretty much always will.

Which is why it's probably not a good idea to makes posts like #202 if you are indeed going to ignore a particular law.

The internet never forgets.

[bellavite1]

FWIW:
At the end of the bill, I read:
"18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties -
14 exceptions. (1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a
16 large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor".
Sounds to me like the magazines grandfathering has been eliminated.
Am I wrong?
Can anyone point out where it says you can still legally own mags purchased before 2013?
People ask for info at the range and I don't want to give incorrect information.