"Assault weapon" ban 2025 version

[FoxtArt]

Another point here is that it adds it to the definition of a dangerous weapon under C.R.S., in the same category as a short barrelled rifle.

There is an affirmative defense if you possess a valid "permit" for the dangerous weapon.

It would be a decent at worst, and likely very strong argument that a tax-stamped weapon (e.g. a SBR) has a valid "permit and or license" for the weapon, and thus the "Rapid Fire Device" prohibition would fall under the same affirmative defense that lets you own an SBR:

https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/f...018-12-102.pdf

Again, so long as your judge doesn't have pink hair and pronouns - I suggest moving any binary triggers in one's possession to tax stamped weapons (SBR/SBS). The affirmative defense is "for the weapon", which you have if you have the tax stamp in hand. YMMV, no guarantees, not legal advice.

ETA: If you buy the factor configuration, SBR it w/ the tax stamp. Two layers of defensive argument there.

[bellavite1]

About them rapid fire devices:

The news has repeatedly stated that the bill prohibits the purchase of rapid fire devices (implying that previously owned ones would be ok to keep).

The text is just re-defining them as dangerous weapons, which would make them illegal immediately upon implementation, no matter when acquired.

What says you?

[FoxtArt]

About them rapid fire devices:

The news has repeatedly stated that the bill prohibits the purchase of rapid fire devices (implying that previously owned ones would be ok to keep).

The text is just re-defining them as dangerous weapons, which would make them illegal immediately upon implementation, no matter when acquired.

What says you?

That is correct (your statement re: the text)

[OneGuy67]

About them rapid fire devices:

The news has repeatedly stated that the bill prohibits the purchase of rapid fire devices (implying that previously owned ones would be ok to keep).

The text is just re-defining them as dangerous weapons, which would make them illegal immediately upon implementation, no matter when acquired.

What says you?

I would say that they are banned from ownership along with bump stocks, if Governor Polis signs the bill.

[TFOGGER]

I would say that they are banned from ownership along with bump stocks, if Governor Polis signs the bill.

Or merely allows it to pass into law without his signature. Which is exactly what that spineless douchnozzle will do.

[OneGuy67]

Or merely allows it to pass into law without his signature. Which is exactly what that spineless douchnozzle will do.

You are probably correct in your assessment.