"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?

[BPTactical]

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

[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]

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.

I agree with FoxtArt on this, due to the requirement he's outlined.

[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.

[DDT951]

Just remember if you choose civil disobedience with respect to this...

You may win in court...but as they stay.

The process is the punishment.

[BushMasterBoy]

I like to think of valuables being buried in PVC pipe and recovered by metal detector. Why are only kings and presidents allowed to protect themselves? TYRANNY!