"Assault weapon" ban 2025 version

[OneGuy67]

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.

As I read it, the final revision of the bill states:

In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-12-302, amend (1)(a) as follows:

18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties - exceptions.

(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on and after July 1, 2013, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor.

The bill amends the language of subsection (1)(a) to eliminate the words "on and after July 1, 2013" and changes the class of Misdemeanor from a Class 2 to a Class 1.

It does not change the language of subsection 2, which states:

(2) (a) A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she:

(I) Owns the large-capacity magazine on July 1, 2013; and

(II) Maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.

(b) If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.

My $0.02. Take it for what you will.

[bellavite1]

As I read it, the final revision of the bill states:

In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-12-302, amend (1)(a) as follows:

18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties - exceptions.

(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on and after July 1, 2013, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor.

The bill amends the language of subsection (1)(a) to eliminate the words "on and after July 1, 2013" and changes the class of Misdemeanor from a Class 2 to a Class 1.

It does not change the language of subsection 2, which states:

(2) (a) A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she:

(I) Owns the large-capacity magazine on July 1, 2013; and

(II) Maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.

(b) If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.

My $0.02. Take it for what you will.

Thank you.

[eddiememphis]

Good catch.

Looking at the bill, it seems are also amending C.R.S. 18-12-302 which is the magazine capacity law, by striking out the July 1, 2013 date.

I haven't heard anyone talk about that one.

[OneGuy67]

Good catch.

Looking at the bill, it seems are also amending C.R.S. 18-12-302 which is the magazine capacity law, by striking out the July 1, 2013 date.

I haven't heard anyone talk about that one.

Which is what we were discussing with Bellavite1's inquiry.

[FoxtArt]

Yeah as pointed out it does not strike out the affirmative defense, so it's not an issue per se, you still have the defense and ability to own pre July 13 mags.

I don't know why they went to the effort to strike out the one section, but it is garbage authoring for a garbage bill.

[JohnnyDrama]

Yeah as pointed out it does not strike out the affirmative defense, so it's not an issue per se, you still have the defense and ability to own pre July 13 mags.

I don't know why they went to the effort to strike out the one section, but it is garbage authoring for a garbage bill.

They have to pass it to find out what's in it?

[.455_Hunter]

I don't know why they went to the effort to strike out the one section, but it is garbage authoring for a garbage bill.

Perhaps because when the bill was written 01 July 2013 was in the future?

[DDT951]

Now that is has passed I will ask a question.

(g.7) "RAPID-FIRE DEVICE" MEANS ANY DEVICE, PART, KIT, TOOL, ACCESSORY, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE 1 STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR THE SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS

So if I buy a rifle (or lower) from Franklin Armory that is factory configured with a binary trigger, is that legal?

If is not increasing the rate of fire because the firearm already comes with device installed and therefore the „standard rate of fire“ is with a binary trigger since it is in changing a factory firearm!

[Sawin]

Now that is has passed I will ask a question.

(g.7) "RAPID-FIRE DEVICE" MEANS ANY DEVICE, PART, KIT, TOOL, ACCESSORY, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE 1 STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR THE SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS

So if I buy a rifle (or lower) from Franklin Armory that is factory configured with a binary trigger, is that legal?

If is not increasing the rate of fire because the firearm already comes with device installed and therefore the „standard rate of fire“ is with a binary trigger since it is in changing a factory firearm!

No. It’s not the standard…

[FoxtArt]

No. It’s not the standard…

Subject to the prior caveats that I have listed...

I would argue the opposite. If he bought the lower with the trigger, it is the standard as built. It is arguably included within the acceptable legislation, which states, "AND REQUIRES A SEPARATE PULL, RELEASE, PUSH, OR
INITIATION OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH CARTRIDGE" The fact that a separate... release is integrated into the definition would give a compelling argument inside a courtroom.

That said, if your judge has pink hair and pronouns, you are f####ed no matter what any law is.