User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 5:28:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vectorsc: Again - this is a Communist attack on our nation. It's important not to interpret the actors involved as innocent/ignorant but well meaning. They are not well meaning, it's not in any way about protecting anyone or stopping anyone from committing heinous acts. Anyone but them that is. Yep, because "muzzle brake" has become the evil 2020's equivalent of 1994's "flash hider". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 5:36:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: pestilence12]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vectorsc: Again - this is a Communist attack on our nation. It's important not to interpret the actors involved as innocent/ignorant but well meaning. They are not well meaning, it's not in any way about protecting anyone or stopping anyone from committing heinous acts. Anyone but them that is. Of course it is. Anyone with a shred of integrity knows this does nothing for violence. It is the exact same response structure as telling all women they can't wear miniskirts because men rape women in miniskirts. Nobody can own an ar15 cuz ar15's are used to kill people. Nobody can wear a miniskirt because men rape if they see miniskirts. Same, same. Disgusting victim blaming and slander and misinformation all wrapped up with a pretty bow. Fucking bullshit communist Socialist dogma that is fleecing America's freedom step by step. But the masses don't have an outright problem with it, so it's defacto supported. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 10:57:33 AM EDT
[#3]
Looks like the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee is really busy making sure that employers can't set grooming standards (they're literally debating a bill about long hair). HB24-1292 isn't on their agenda this whole week.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 11:15:55 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Looks like the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee is really busy making sure that employers can't set grooming standards (they're literally debating a bill about long hair). HB24-1292 isn't on their agenda this whole week. That’s good. Let them stay in that one as long as possible. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 3:47:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Harlikwin]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Looks like the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee is really busy making sure that employers can't set grooming standards (they're literally debating a bill about long hair). HB24-1292 isn't on their agenda this whole week. Well there are two possibilities. 1. The chair is deliberately not putting it up for review 2. They will add a session right at the end to fuck us with 0 notice whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 3:50:24 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Well there are two possibilities. 1. The chair is deliberately not putting it up for review 2. They will add a session right at the end to fuck us with 0 notice whatsoever. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harlikwin: Originally Posted By pestilence12: Looks like the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee is really busy making sure that employers can't set grooming standards (they're literally debating a bill about long hair). HB24-1292 isn't on their agenda this whole week. Well there are two possibilities. 1. The chair is deliberately not putting it up for review 2. They will add a session right at the end to fuck us with 0 notice whatsoever. I'm hoping it's 1, but it's probably 2. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 5:31:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By uncle_big_green: I'm hoping it's 1, but it's probably 2. Is all down to how secure they feel for re-election. Thats the only thing they give a shit about. So the ones in safe districts will be all woooo! for it, but the ones that might have a fight, are skeptical, is the juice worth the squeeze. Its that simple. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 7:29:11 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 11:24:56 PM EDT
[#9]
Welp,
Shit if true, but I'm not surprised. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2024 11:26:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Here we go.
Secured my AR10 today. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 5:18:22 AM EDT
[#11]
See new posts
Conversation Rocky Mountain Gun Owners reposted Alicia Garcia @boomstickbabe COLORADO 'ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN' UPDATE I have it on very good authority that tomorrow, 5/2/24, Colorado Committee may put on the calendar either very late tonight or announce it in committee hearing tomorrow, the 'Assault Weapons Ban', for an impromptu hearing. Essentially they may very well announce to hear the Excise Tax, State permitting for gun shops and the AWB. They can gavel it in for action only as well. Colorado! If you can be at the Capitol tomorrow, please show up and be prepared to testify if it happens. As soon as I have more information I will let you know. If you are not seeing it on the calendar doesn't mean they will not add it late tonight or announce it tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 6:45:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: PointBlank82]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ecgRN: Here we go. Secured my AR10 today. I'm just about done. Picking up a preban Chinese AK and a MCX Rattler lower next week Anyone care to speculate whether or not threaded barrel hunting rifles will be permitted to be sold after this goes into effect? I've asked various gun shops and nobody fucking knows. Most expect not to. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:20:39 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: I'm just about done. Picking up a preban Chinese AK and a MCX Rattler lower next week Anyone care to speculate whether or not threaded barrel hunting rifles will be permitted to be sold after this goes into effect? I've asked various gun shops and nobody fucking knows. Most expect not to. My read is that the threaded barrel thing only applies to semiautos, as it's one of the "evil features" listed under semiauto rifles and pistols. (That's from a quick ctrl-F through the document, the word threaded only shows up twice.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 8:37:58 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: I'm just about done. Picking up a preban Chinese AK and a MCX Rattler lower next week Anyone care to speculate whether or not threaded barrel hunting rifles will be permitted to be sold after this goes into effect? I've asked various gun shops and nobody fucking knows. Most expect not to. Read the definition of rapid fire trigger activator and note that POSSESSION is banned and realize that ANY semi-auto can be included just by claiming a deviation from the “original” - so basically any AR with anything other than a milspec FCG (whether factory or user-installed) cannot be POSSESSED. That’s IMNSHO the most insidious part of the whole bill - not least because there’s no provisions for what you might already own… |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 9:46:04 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: Read the definition of rapid fire trigger activator and note that POSSESSION is banned and realize that ANY semi-auto can be included just by claiming a deviation from the “original” - so basically any AR with anything other than a milspec FCG (whether factory or user-installed) cannot be POSSESSED. That’s IMNSHO the most insidious part of the whole bill - not least because there’s no provisions for what you might already own… IIRC there is a Grandfather Clause |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:11:36 AM EDT
[#16]
I heard that our "libertarian" governor signed the credit card tracking bill. I'm driving now, so I'll dig into it later.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 10:43:20 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By djkest: IIRC there is a Grandfather Clause Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By djkest: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: Read the definition of rapid fire trigger activator and note that POSSESSION is banned and realize that ANY semi-auto can be included just by claiming a deviation from the “original” - so basically any AR with anything other than a milspec FCG (whether factory or user-installed) cannot be POSSESSED. That’s IMNSHO the most insidious part of the whole bill - not least because there’s no provisions for what you might already own… IIRC there is a Grandfather Clause Do we know if that applies to "Trigger Activators"? Maybe I need to get my shit in gear and buy some Franklin Armory triggers too |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:05:23 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By uncle_big_green: I heard that our "libertarian" governor signed the credit card tracking bill. I'm driving now, so I'll dig into it later. I'm looking |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:09:04 AM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:13:34 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: Do we know if that applies to "Trigger Activators"? Maybe I need to get my shit in gear and buy some Franklin Armory triggers too 18-12-604. Possession of rapid-fire trigger activators 23 prohibited - exemptions - penalties. (1) EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE 24 PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2) OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON SHALL NOT 25 KNOWINGLY POSSESS A RAPID-FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR. You just straight up can't possess them. Period, end of story. Unless you're law enforcement or the military, of course 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:16:43 AM EDT
[#21]
I don't see the AWB bill in any committee schedule for today
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:18:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: pestilence12]
[#22]
The veteran committee just announced their hearings today. No mention of HB1292
No special order. Sounds like this one ain't getting anything today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:23:40 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:26:39 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By uncle_big_green: @pestilence12 https://kdvr.com/news/politics/colorado-firearm-code-track-gun-ammo-purchases-credit-cards/ Well that sucks. Guess the .gov hasn't updated their website yet. Oh well. Cash it is. Or prepaid Visas. With cash. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 11:48:35 AM EDT
[#25]
Looks like they're playing games with scheduling the AWB. But on a positive note, the tax bill has a chance to die in committee.
Polis signing the merchant codes bill sucks. Looks like he cares more about power than principle at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:31:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BullpupFan]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: Do we know if that applies to "Trigger Activators"? Maybe I need to get my shit in gear and buy some Franklin Armory triggers too Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: Originally Posted By djkest: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: Read the definition of rapid fire trigger activator and note that POSSESSION is banned and realize that ANY semi-auto can be included just by claiming a deviation from the “original” - so basically any AR with anything other than a milspec FCG (whether factory or user-installed) cannot be POSSESSED. That’s IMNSHO the most insidious part of the whole bill - not least because there’s no provisions for what you might already own… IIRC there is a Grandfather Clause Do we know if that applies to "Trigger Activators"? Maybe I need to get my shit in gear and buy some Franklin Armory triggers too It does not, simple POSSESSION is banned - so any DUI driver who KILLS someone faces lower fines - does that seem right to you? *ETA - I believe based on their "copies" language on specific models that even a factory AR with a non-milspec trigger would fall under the definition since it's parts which arguably increase the rate of fire compared to the original design. Basically they would argue that your LaRue factory rifle is a "copy" of the original AR-15 and that LaRue put evil "rapid-fire trigger activator" parts (compared to the original design, lower lock time is mechanically arguable as an increase in the theoretically rate of fire) in it from the factory, so it's an unpossessable "assault weapon" from day 1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:34:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: It does not, simple POSSESSION is banned - so any aftermarket trigger makes you a $250,000+ fined felon DUI driver who KILLS someone faces lower fines - does that seem right to you? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: Originally Posted By PointBlank82: Originally Posted By djkest: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: Read the definition of rapid fire trigger activator and note that POSSESSION is banned and realize that ANY semi-auto can be included just by claiming a deviation from the “original” - so basically any AR with anything other than a milspec FCG (whether factory or user-installed) cannot be POSSESSED. That’s IMNSHO the most insidious part of the whole bill - not least because there’s no provisions for what you might already own… IIRC there is a Grandfather Clause Do we know if that applies to "Trigger Activators"? Maybe I need to get my shit in gear and buy some Franklin Armory triggers too It does not, simple POSSESSION is banned - so any aftermarket trigger makes you a $250,000+ fined felon DUI driver who KILLS someone faces lower fines - does that seem right to you? Any aftermarket standard trigger? Are you sure about that? I thought it was binary only. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:38:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AstraPat: Any aftermarket standard trigger? Are you sure about that? I thought it was binary only. (9) "RAPID-FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR" MEANS: 18 (a) ANY MANUAL, POWER-DRIVEN, OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE THAT 19 IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A 20 SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM WHEN THE DEVICE IS ATTACHED TO THE 21 FIREARM; 22 (b) ANY PART OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM OR COMBINATION OF 23 PARTS THAT IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE 24 OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM BY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR THE 25 OPERATOR OF THE FIREARM TO MAKE A SEPARATE MOVEMENT FOR EACH 26 INDIVIDUAL FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER; OR 27 (c) ANY OTHER DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT IS -12- 1292 1 DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF 2 FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE 3 FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT 4 DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS. Here's their definition. It doesn't sound like it outright bans any aftermarket trigger per se, but it is vague in the 27(c) section. (a) and (b) don't go after triggers, but the (c) part is...grey. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:39:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BullpupFan]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AstraPat: Any aftermarket standard trigger? Are you sure about that? I thought it was binary only. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AstraPat: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: Originally Posted By PointBlank82: Originally Posted By djkest: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: Read the definition of rapid fire trigger activator and note that POSSESSION is banned and realize that ANY semi-auto can be included just by claiming a deviation from the “original” - so basically any AR with anything other than a milspec FCG (whether factory or user-installed) cannot be POSSESSED. That’s IMNSHO the most insidious part of the whole bill - not least because there’s no provisions for what you might already own… IIRC there is a Grandfather Clause Do we know if that applies to "Trigger Activators"? Maybe I need to get my shit in gear and buy some Franklin Armory triggers too It does not, simple POSSESSION is banned - so any aftermarket trigger makes you a $250,000+ fined felon DUI driver who KILLS someone faces lower fines - does that seem right to you? Any aftermarket standard trigger? Are you sure about that? I thought it was binary only. I believe based on their "copies" language on specific models that even a factory AR with a non-milspec trigger would fall under the definition since it's parts which arguably increase the rate of fire compared to the original design. Basically they would argue that your LaRue factory rifle is a "copy" of the original AR-15 and that LaRue put evil "rapid-fire trigger activator" parts (compared to the original design, lower lock time is mechanically arguable as an increase in the theoretically rate of fire) in it from the factory, so it's an unpossessable "assault weapon" from day 1. DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS "Designed" vs "standard" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:44:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: pestilence12]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: I believe based on their "copies" language on specific models that even a factory AR with a non-milspec trigger would fall under the definition since it's parts which arguably increase the rate of fire compared to the original design. Basically they would argue that your LaRue factory rifle is a "copy" of the original AR-15 and that LaRue put evil "rapid-fire trigger activator" parts (compared to the original design, lower lock time is mechanically arguable as an increase in the theoretically rate of fire) in it from the factory, so it's an unpossessable "assault weapon" from day 1. DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS "Designed" vs "standard" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:44:26 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: (9) "RAPID-FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR" MEANS: 18 (a) ANY MANUAL, POWER-DRIVEN, OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE THAT 19 IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A 20 SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM WHEN THE DEVICE IS ATTACHED TO THE 21 FIREARM; 22 (b) ANY PART OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM OR COMBINATION OF 23 PARTS THAT IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE 24 OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM BY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR THE 25 OPERATOR OF THE FIREARM TO MAKE A SEPARATE MOVEMENT FOR EACH 26 INDIVIDUAL FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER; OR 27 (c) ANY OTHER DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT IS -12- 1292 1 DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF 2 FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE 3 FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT 4 DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS. Here's their definition. It doesn't sound like it outright bans any aftermarket trigger per se, but it is vague in the 27(c) section. (a) and (b) don't go after triggers, but the (c) part is...grey. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Originally Posted By AstraPat: Any aftermarket standard trigger? Are you sure about that? I thought it was binary only. (9) "RAPID-FIRE TRIGGER ACTIVATOR" MEANS: 18 (a) ANY MANUAL, POWER-DRIVEN, OR ELECTRONIC DEVICE THAT 19 IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A 20 SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM WHEN THE DEVICE IS ATTACHED TO THE 21 FIREARM; 22 (b) ANY PART OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM OR COMBINATION OF 23 PARTS THAT IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE 24 OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM BY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR THE 25 OPERATOR OF THE FIREARM TO MAKE A SEPARATE MOVEMENT FOR EACH 26 INDIVIDUAL FUNCTION OF THE TRIGGER; OR 27 (c) ANY OTHER DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT IS -12- 1292 1 DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF 2 FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE 3 FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT 4 DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS. Here's their definition. It doesn't sound like it outright bans any aftermarket trigger per se, but it is vague in the 27(c) section. (a) and (b) don't go after triggers, but the (c) part is...grey. The last part of that is super grey. "SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS." Ok, my interprep is that their intent is probably to go after binary, FRT and bumpstocks. Bonus points if they catch someone using a DIA or Glock Switch backplate. Contraband. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:46:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Well your LaRue or Geissele or whatever AR is outright "no bueno" from the text in the bill. The question is can we still buy/possess aftermarket triggers if this passes. The answer for binaries and FRT's is "absolutely not". The real question is, if this passes, can I get a LaRue MBT for an AR I already possessed before this bill became law? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: I believe based on their "copies" language on specific models that even a factory AR with a non-milspec trigger would fall under the definition since it's parts which arguably increase the rate of fire compared to the original design. Basically they would argue that your LaRue factory rifle is a "copy" of the original AR-15 and that LaRue put evil "rapid-fire trigger activator" parts (compared to the original design, lower lock time is mechanically arguable as an increase in the theoretically rate of fire) in it from the factory, so it's an unpossessable "assault weapon" from day 1. DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS "Designed" vs "standard" Well your LaRue or Geissele or whatever AR is outright "no bueno" from the text in the bill. The question is can we still buy/possess aftermarket triggers if this passes. The answer for binaries and FRT's is "absolutely not". The real question is, if this passes, can I get a LaRue MBT for an AR I already possessed before this bill became law? I think you'll be able to get them thru the grey market, but expect all the big distributors to basically boycott this state on anything questionable. Just like that guy on Gunbroker's lawyer telling him not to sell anything AR related here due to Denver and Boulder's laws. Fucking cities ruling the entire state. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:47:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Well your LaRue or Geissele or whatever AR is outright "no bueno" from the text in the bill. The question is can we still buy/possess aftermarket triggers if this passes. The answer for binaries and FRT's is "absolutely not". The real question is, if this passes, can I get a LaRue MBT for an AR I already possessed before this bill became law or do I have to swap all my triggers out for standard milspec triggers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: I believe based on their "copies" language on specific models that even a factory AR with a non-milspec trigger would fall under the definition since it's parts which arguably increase the rate of fire compared to the original design. Basically they would argue that your LaRue factory rifle is a "copy" of the original AR-15 and that LaRue put evil "rapid-fire trigger activator" parts (compared to the original design, lower lock time is mechanically arguable as an increase in the theoretically rate of fire) in it from the factory, so it's an unpossessable "assault weapon" from day 1. DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS "Designed" vs "standard" Well your LaRue or Geissele or whatever AR is outright "no bueno" from the text in the bill. The question is can we still buy/possess aftermarket triggers if this passes. The answer for binaries and FRT's is "absolutely not". The real question is, if this passes, can I get a LaRue MBT for an AR I already possessed before this bill became law or do I have to swap all my triggers out for standard milspec triggers. You're missing the point - you could not POSSESS any non-milspec-triggered AR by that interpretation, it's not just that you can't buy one, all "rapid fire trigger activators" would become contraband so you'd have to put a milspec trigger in the otherwise-grandfathered AR to arguably be allowed to possess it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:50:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: I think you'll be able to get them thru the grey market, but expect all the big distributors to basically boycott this state on anything questionable. Just like that guy on Gunbroker's lawyer telling him not to sell anything AR related here due to Denver and Boulder's laws. Fucking cities ruling the entire state. Yeah, I agree. IDK if gun shops even survive this onslaught anyways. Between Merchant Payment Tracking, the bill last year allowing lawfare against them, this sweeping AWB, CBI able to stop on by whenever, extortion tax bill, and a state permit system for gun shops, they won't survive. I think grey/black market will be the only way to get parts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:50:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: pestilence12]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: You're missing the point - you could not POSSESS any non-milspec-triggered AR by that interpretation, it's not just that you can't buy one, all "rapid fire trigger activators" would become contraband so you'd have to put a milspec trigger in the otherwise-grandfathered AR to arguably be allowed to possess it. Yeah I caught up, see my edit  haven't had enough caffeine this morning.Guess if that's the case, idk man. Idk. Its fucking bad. What do we do? CBI wants to see your triggers, you say no, they red flag you as a threat, come take your guns by force...what's the end play here? Die in a gunfight with feds? Shit is lookin real, real bleak. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:52:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: The last part of that is super grey. "SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS." Ok, my interprep is that their intent is probably to go after binary, FRT and bumpstocks. Bonus points if they catch someone using a DIA or Glock Switch backplate. Contraband. I agree it's the intent, I actually would argue that binary in and of itself is NOT banned because the rate of fire was limited by time from trigger break (sear release) to ignition and time to reset where the hammer is held on a sear. Now most binaries probably have shorter lock times so they fall under part C but that's arguably distinct from the binary-ness. FRTs don't actually remove the need for a separate motion, so I argue they too are NOT actually covered... but that's clearly the goal 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:54:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Yeah I caught up, see my edit haven't had enough caffeine this morning.Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: You're missing the point - you could not POSSESS any non-milspec-triggered AR by that interpretation, it's not just that you can't buy one, all "rapid fire trigger activators" would become contraband so you'd have to put a milspec trigger in the otherwise-grandfathered AR to arguably be allowed to possess it. Yeah I caught up, see my edit haven't had enough caffeine this morning.No worries, brother! I fear NOBODY is really catching just how bad that section is - it's basically a wide-open way to ban possession of almost anything. If it fell under the grandfather clause it would be bad enough, but this way is insane! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:54:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: I agree it's the intent, I actually would argue that binary in and of itself is NOT banned because the rate of fire was limited by time from trigger break (sear release) to ignition and time to reset where the hammer is held on a sear. Now most binaries probably have shorter lock times so they fall under part C but that's arguably distinct from the binary-ness. FRTs don't actually remove the need for a separate motion, so I argue they too are NOT actually covered... but that's clearly the goal Yeah but to anyone not in-the-know on the technical differences (i.e. someone watching a youtube video on binary or frt triggers who doesn't know shit about guns) would say that's a rapid increase in fire rate, and therefore is covered/prohibited by the bill's text 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:54:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: PointBlank82]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Yeah, I agree. IDK if gun shops even survive this onslaught anyways. Between Merchant Payment Tracking, the bill last year allowing lawfare against them, this sweeping AWB, CBI able to stop on by whenever, extortion tax bill, and a state permit system for gun shops, they won't survive. I think grey/black market will be the only way to get parts. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Originally Posted By PointBlank82: I think you'll be able to get them thru the grey market, but expect all the big distributors to basically boycott this state on anything questionable. Just like that guy on Gunbroker's lawyer telling him not to sell anything AR related here due to Denver and Boulder's laws. Fucking cities ruling the entire state. Yeah, I agree. IDK if gun shops even survive this onslaught anyways. Between Merchant Payment Tracking, the bill last year allowing lawfare against them, this sweeping AWB, CBI able to stop on by whenever, extortion tax bill, and a state permit system for gun shops, they won't survive. I think grey/black market will be the only way to get parts. Don't forget gun shops in Cheyenne. Cash and Carry while traveling will be common. Hopefully this state doesn't go full nazi like California and put up spotters at those joints to ID people buying shit. Apparently Washington is doing the whole "Border Patrol" nazi shit now too. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:56:31 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PointBlank82: Don't forget gun shops in Cheyenne. Cash and Carry while traveling will be common. Hopefully this state doesn't go full nazi like California and put up spotters at those joints to ID people buying shit. you know they're gonna. If not official spotters, there will be state Nancy's that will. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 12:59:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Originally Posted By pestilence12: Yeah but to anyone not in-the-know on the technical differences (i.e. someone watching a youtube video on binary or frt triggers who doesn't know shit about guns) would say that's a rapid increase in fire rate, and therefore is covered/prohibited by the bill's text Oh absolutely agreed, thus my "insidious" comments Originally Posted By PointBlank82: Don't forget gun shops in Cheyenne. Cash and Carry while traveling will be common. Hopefully this state doesn't go full nazi like California and put up spotters at those joints to ID people buying shit. Challenging parts/guns as "pre-ban" vs "post-ban" is a losing proposition which is why POSSESSION bans are the real issue. Nobody cares where you got the fast-firing-sounding gun if all fast-firing-sounding guns are unpossessable. So you can get an FRT but you can't shooti it anywhere... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 1:33:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BullpupFan: Oh absolutely agreed, thus my "insidious" comments Challenging parts/guns as "pre-ban" vs "post-ban" is a losing proposition which is why POSSESSION bans are the real issue. Nobody cares where you got the fast-firing-sounding gun if all fast-firing-sounding guns are unpossessable. So you can get an FRT but you can't shooti it anywhere... It's all insidious when taken all together at once, rather than broken up into separate bills. If you step back and look at each bill from 2022, 2023, and this year, you'll see a trend of bills that, while separate are not a big deal (in reality, like the mag ban), but when taken all together they are nothing but outright doom for 2A in Colorado. Taxes, lawsuit threats to businesses if someone uses a gun they sold, liability insurance for gun owners, killing businesses and shops except for the big national chains that will comply, red flags, purchase tracking, limited purchasing and outright bans on certain items, restricted areas for shooting (can only shoot at state sponsored ranges), mandatory storage requirements, expanded background checks with an extra tax/fee, on and on and on and ON. They all tie to each other, each one a link in the chain of gun control in this state. Also, if you take the time to go back and look, start at the 2016 legislative session for firearm bills and go forward. You'll see these and similar bills introduced, die, then get reintroduced next year, and pass. They introduce these fucking bills over and over and over until they pass them. I'm just tired of it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 1:44:11 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: It's all insidious when taken all together at once, rather than broken up into separate bills. If you step back and look at each bill from 2022, 2023, and this year, you'll see a trend of bills that, while separate are not a big deal (in reality, like the mag ban), but when taken all together they are nothing but outright doom for 2A in Colorado. Taxes, lawsuit threats to businesses if someone uses a gun they sold, liability insurance for gun owners, killing businesses and shops except for the big national chains that will comply, red flags, purchase tracking, limited purchasing and outright bans on certain items, restricted areas for shooting (can only shoot at state sponsored ranges), mandatory storage requirements, expanded background checks with an extra tax/fee, on and on and on and ON. They all tie to each other, each one a link in the chain of gun control in this state. Also, if you take the time to go back and look, start at the 2016 legislative session for firearm bills and go forward. You'll see these and similar bills introduced, die, then get reintroduced next year, and pass. They introduce these fucking bills over and over and over until they pass them. I'm just tired of it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: Originally Posted By BullpupFan: Oh absolutely agreed, thus my "insidious" comments Challenging parts/guns as "pre-ban" vs "post-ban" is a losing proposition which is why POSSESSION bans are the real issue. Nobody cares where you got the fast-firing-sounding gun if all fast-firing-sounding guns are unpossessable. So you can get an FRT but you can't shooti it anywhere... It's all insidious when taken all together at once, rather than broken up into separate bills. If you step back and look at each bill from 2022, 2023, and this year, you'll see a trend of bills that, while separate are not a big deal (in reality, like the mag ban), but when taken all together they are nothing but outright doom for 2A in Colorado. Taxes, lawsuit threats to businesses if someone uses a gun they sold, liability insurance for gun owners, killing businesses and shops except for the big national chains that will comply, red flags, purchase tracking, limited purchasing and outright bans on certain items, restricted areas for shooting (can only shoot at state sponsored ranges), mandatory storage requirements, expanded background checks with an extra tax/fee, on and on and on and ON. They all tie to each other, each one a link in the chain of gun control in this state. Also, if you take the time to go back and look, start at the 2016 legislative session for firearm bills and go forward. You'll see these and similar bills introduced, die, then get reintroduced next year, and pass. They introduce these fucking bills over and over and over until they pass them. I'm just tired of it. And this is why the can go fuck themselves if they ask me to turn in any of my legally purchased semi-auto match triggers. It's not going to stop there, they won't be satisfied until it's all banned and demiliterized with a lead filled barrel. Mark my words, they want all your shit to be wall hangers in the long run. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 1:44:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: It's all insidious when taken all together at once, rather than broken up into separate bills. If you step back and look at each bill from 2022, 2023, and this year, you'll see a trend of bills that, while separate are not a big deal (in reality, like the mag ban), but when taken all together they are nothing but outright doom for 2A in Colorado. Taxes, lawsuit threats to businesses if someone uses a gun they sold, liability insurance for gun owners, killing businesses and shops except for the big national chains that will comply, red flags, purchase tracking, limited purchasing and outright bans on certain items, restricted areas for shooting (can only shoot at state sponsored ranges), mandatory storage requirements, expanded background checks with an extra tax/fee, on and on and on and ON. They all tie to each other, each one a link in the chain of gun control in this state. Also, if you take the time to go back and look, start at the 2016 legislative session for firearm bills and go forward. You'll see these and similar bills introduced, die, then get reintroduced next year, and pass. They introduce these fucking bills over and over and over until they pass them. I'm just tired of it. Very well said. It's all right there... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 2:28:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ecgRN: Very well said. It's all right there... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ecgRN: Originally Posted By pestilence12: It's all insidious when taken all together at once, rather than broken up into separate bills. If you step back and look at each bill from 2022, 2023, and this year, you'll see a trend of bills that, while separate are not a big deal (in reality, like the mag ban), but when taken all together they are nothing but outright doom for 2A in Colorado. Taxes, lawsuit threats to businesses if someone uses a gun they sold, liability insurance for gun owners, killing businesses and shops except for the big national chains that will comply, red flags, purchase tracking, limited purchasing and outright bans on certain items, restricted areas for shooting (can only shoot at state sponsored ranges), mandatory storage requirements, expanded background checks with an extra tax/fee, on and on and on and ON. They all tie to each other, each one a link in the chain of gun control in this state. Also, if you take the time to go back and look, start at the 2016 legislative session for firearm bills and go forward. You'll see these and similar bills introduced, die, then get reintroduced next year, and pass. They introduce these fucking bills over and over and over until they pass them. I'm just tired of it. Very well said. It's all right there... It sure is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 3:46:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Define "Standard rate of fire"
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 3:51:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hockeysew: Define "Standard rate of fire" I mean I want Jerry to be the baseline for “slow” 
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 4:14:20 PM EDT
[#48]
RMGO posted a video on Facebook saying the AWB bill will NOT be heard in committee today. But, it's likely it will be heard on Saturday.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 4:18:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hockeysew: Define "Standard rate of fire" Given how they're defining the rest of this dogshit, they're gonna use the brain surgeon air force vet and rocket scientist army vet that are on the moms demand (anal) action payroll to define that. A "reasonable" rate of fire. C'mon, man 
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 5/2/2024 7:16:14 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pestilence12: A "reasonable" rate of fire. C'mon, man 1rd per second, per Fudd Range Rule 103.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File
