Legal Issues

Legal Tip: Are My Magazines Illegal in Round-Restricted States?

Single Stack Magazine

U.S. Law Shield and Texas Law Shield members asked program attorneys about transporting magazines into states with new round-capacity limits: Diamondback DB9 Magazine Q: I am considering a move to Colorado. How does the state’s new magazine limit affect people moving into the state? All of my magazines hold more than 15 rounds, the new limit. Also, they were purchased after the new law went into effect. Does that mean the moment I set foot in the state, I am illegal? It seems to be that way from what I am reading. What does all this mean for those of us not only moving into Colorado, but traveling there on vacation or business? Or for that matter, traveling through to a different state? What if there is not a smaller magazine available [for a particular firearm]? I looked and found there is not an available lower-capacity factory magazine for my handgun, a Springfield XDM 40 with 4.5-inch barrel. Does this mean I have the right to own this firearm, and Colorado’s new law disabled my firearm, making it a useless paperweight? Also, in the case of the magazines that are modified to be compliant, are they still illegal because they were originally above the limit? For example, if I order parts to modify mine to be within the limit, does that abide by the law? Currently, mine are above the limit, but I can order a conversion kit that costs considerably less than new magazines. The modification serves the purpose of the law, limits the capacity. I would appreciate an answer from the AG’s office on this matter. I am sure others would as well. — sjbtjfam U.S. Law ShieldLaw Shield: No magazines above the capacity limits are allowed in Colorado that were purchased after the date the law went into effect, regardless of whether it is owned by a resident or a visitor. If you are considering moving to Colorado, you absolutely are subject to the state’s 15-round magazine-capacity law, and your magazines would be illegal in Colorado. Unfortunately, because the magazines you use for your gun are illegal, you will not be legally able to use the gun with those particular magazines.

Regarding your question on modifying the magazines, unfortunately there is no “yes” or “no” answer. Like you said, the law is less than clear. If you are in possession of a magazine that is capable of holding more than 15 rounds, you are in violation of the law. By purchasing a kit “making it legal,” you probably would be within the bounds of the law, but this is a gray area that needs to be decided by a judge or jury. At this time, there is no case law on this issue.

If you want to ask a confidential question of the U.S. Law Shield or Texas Law Shield lawyers, send them an email.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (40)

  1. @ Frantbk: Seriously – now you’re throwing a temper tantrum? If anything you should have gone out of your way to prove me wrong by having responded with at least a bit class and maturity.

    But instead you actually chose the path of self-denigration by stooping to the lowest common denominator with pathetic attempts to hurl your impotent insults at all of law enforcement.

    You’re in quite a disgraceful condition indeed, but not unexpected as I had previously assessed in my last post. I must admit I feel an air of satisfaction that you so quickly proved how accurate my assessment of your juvenile personality really was.

    Unfortunately during your pitiful attempt to insult everyone in law enforcement, you may have not realized your categorical abuse extends to all LEOSA covered officers which also includes the Military, Coast Guard, Correctional Officers, Probation Officers, Postal Inspectors, Game Wardens, Forest Service, Park Police, Rangers, Marshals, Sheriffs, State Police, Constables, Border Patrol, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police, Library of Congress Police, US Mint Police, Dept of State Police, Secret Service, Veterans Affairs Police, Railroad Police, Tribal Police, and University Police.

    I’m certain I forgot a few agencies given their members are numbered in the “hundreds of thousands”, but I think this is enough that you should easily realize by now what a ridiculous spectacle you’ve just made of yourself.

    Since you feel we are all such “unprofessional dicks”, do us a favor – if ever a loved one should wind up missing, your car gets stolen, or your home invaded, try not calling law enforcement and see just how far you get handling that on your own. I’m fairly confident your family will consider calling you the “D” word for failing to call us.

  2. G-man
    There is no doubt you are in law enforcement. You spend so much of your post beating up on people that don’t agree with you. The question I have is there any youtube video of you on the web? 🙂 You weren’t the cop that smack the crap out of the women in California were you? Yes if you are going to call be stupid in writing expect to get your crap handed back to you.

    I would address all 9 paragraphs of your rant, but it would be just a waste of time. So I will leave you with this:

    LEOSA at its very core is say to the American people that police officers are so petty, immature, and unprofessional. That a law had to be passed by Congress to keep 929,000 officer from being such dixcks to one another that could ruin each others careers that this law had to be passed to force all of the DICK officer from screwing over another officer because they are petty, immature and unprofessional that we, the people, through our elected officials have to write dump ass law on conduct and how DICK, DUMB-ASS law enforcement officer must how to act when dealing with another person of there profession.

    That G-man is LEOSA at is very core. LEOSA is telling you how you must act when dealing with another person of the same profession. That in its self is pretty sad,. That act is say just how unprofessional law enforcement officer are in this country, which is pretty damn bad.

  3. Secundius
    Once again. Not if it is in conflict with a States rights under the U.S. Constitutions. If it is in conflict with the 14th and 10th Amendment the the Court is required to free the conflict in favor of the Amendments. Which is the supreme law of the law, not the LEOSA act. So, once again if the law is in conflict with an Amendment the Court has to free the Amendment of the conflict from that the act and render the act unconstitutional. Therefore it would not trump a State law because the State would be protected by the Amendment the act would be in conflict with.

    1. @ Frantbk.

      If you really believe all that BS, You’d be petitioning the Supreme Court, right now with the NRA’s Money, Influence, and Lawyers, Right Now.If you can’t get anyone of US to swallow your BS. You’ll never sell it, too the Courts. It’s the law of the land, and live with it.

  4. @ Frantbk: Unlike me, you have nothing whatsoever to do with law enforcement, which makes LEOSA none of your business to begin with. So you’d be well advised to go waste your time somewhere else because there are highly trained professionals such as myself making the decisions that matter anyway.

    What you fail to understand is this was never open for a debate; this was me informing you of the hard facts and written laws as heavily documented by federal statutes and the Constitution.

    You either choose to accept these facts or you go away, but you certainly have not convinced anyone here that you are right. And when you are unable to persuade or compel anyone to join your position, you have failed. It is just that simple.

    However, you have succeeded in one thing – showing everyone what a juvenile you are by acting like a little child that can’t think of anything more to say than, “nuh-uh” and “because I said so”, all while I continue to present not only facts, but documentation to substantiate everything I’ve said.

    I have overwhelmingly proven you irrelevant. Now we are simply at the point where we must part ways. It is obvious you refuse to accept facts and I have no desire to watch you continue making a fool of yourself. So, in closing I wish to convey some serious advice that may help you come to terms with your problem:

    A person of low intelligence usually does not possess the innate ability to recognize their own stupidity, and thus out of frustration they persist with their absurd and antagonistic behavior. They lack the intellectual receptivity required to digest any facts and logic presented in opposition to their defiant and erroneous views. As a result, these individuals are incapable of ever sensing or knowing for themselves how wrong they actually are. They literally have no concept in this area which makes it impossible for sensible people to break through. I strongly believe that you suffer from such a condition.

    As well, these types of people are heavily stricken with “Confirmation Bias”, a condition known in psychology whereby the afflicted individual spends more energy and effort searching for only information that supports only their views rather than seeing reality as it truly is.

    Some have been able to overcome “Confirmation Bias” with an exercise. If you wish to try it – pretend for a moment you agree with me. Then, with an open mind, go review all the facts and documentation that supports my position. Remember, you must force yourself to do your research while agreeing with me. You will quickly be surprised to find how wrong you once were. Go ahead… give it a try.

    Regardless, if you do continue to choose to live in such bizarre denial, know that I, along with thousands of other law enforcement officers, have and will continue to win court cases and utilize these laws throughout any state we please in spite of your ignorant opinion to the contrary. Now that is a proven reality.

    1. @G-Man,

      I suggested you just not forget the headstone! You know….. Just a headstone??

      Well, I suppose it all could just be condense to this:

      >> FRANTBK <<
      TIVSS INFECTED
      "Unable to overcome
      Confirmation Bias and
      Died from a terminal case
      of bad facts and stupidity"

      Little wordy…..Of course, won't be understood by many others ….too bad [insert a sad face here] too sad.

      Did anyone else hear that door slam shut!! LOL!

  5. G-Man
    I don’t have to pay you at all. I went out on the internet and only found 3 case on LOESA. You only found one case more then the 3 I found. What is more important is that none of this case are by the Supreme Court. Therefore, if you knew anything about the legal system you would know that the law only is valid in those districts where LEOSA has been upheld The next problem with your ignorance (as you like to call everyone else); is that none of these case are a constitutional review of the law by any of these courts. In simple words – G-man – The court only decided that the person was protected by the law. There is nothing in the Courts writing about whether the law is constitutional, or unconstitutional.
    Once again – G-Man – LEOSA is not the law of the land because the Supreme Court would have to rule thereby making the law valid in all the federal districts

    Out of 929,000. How many are not in good standing with there departments? 5% 15%? Yes that is one of the requirements of LEOSA. You still get you hundreds of thousands of officers, but not 929,000 State and Federal LEO’s.

    As for your Cornell law blip. Federal law does not trump State laws if the Federal law violates an Amendment. Say the 14th Amendment, or the 10th Amendment. which is where States have authority over federal law. G-man you read something as see it as black & white, but there is so much case law out there that says your wrong (I’m not going to look it up for you to prove how right I am). You the kind of person that insults people, just like you did in your post when your not nearly as right as you think you are.

    1. @ Frantbk.

      Re-read your Constitutional History, and sue your History Teacher!

      Federal Preemption refers to the invalidation of a US state law when it conflicts with federal law. Constitutional basis [edit] according to the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) of the United States Constitution.

    2. This must be the Blog of the Living Dead’s comments!
      I thought that he had been put out of his misery by the facts!
      Apparently solid body hits even with high powered factual munitions are not completely effective!
      Its possible that irreparable damage to the Brain may be the only means to terminate this deadly infection of TIVSS. (Terminal Intelligence Viral Stupidity Syndrome)
      It seems very hard to eradicate and is apparently highly contagious! To avoid being infected or allowing the infection to become terminally permanent to ones own intelligence, please follow these simple guidelines:
      1) When participating in a thread its important to put ones mind in gear before opening ones mouth.
      2) When opening ones mouth be sure what’s going to come out of it is worthy of the thread and its root blog.
      3) listen carefully to those who’s stance is backed up by confirmable facts and may actually know something of what their talking about.
      4) disagreeing with established facts or confirmable truths will only accelerate the TIVSS infection with one’s own comment thread if they don’t follow guidelines 1 thru 3

      NOTE: For the uninflected an still intelligent thinking individuals, if a thread did not have one or two contributors who are severely infected by TIVSS (pronounced Tie-Vess, by the way) that some of the more factual information might not come out and to our attention providing those of us with common sense a greater knowledge base. Their often inflexible and unsupportable comments often lead those with the correct, and supportable information to impart it so as to keep the record straight. It is important to pay attention to these paths of discussion if one wishes to benefit from the knowledge being imparted. It remains up to each persons and is their responsibility as to what they take away from such discussions.
      With that in mind please have some compassion for the those who are unlikely to recover from this debilitating illness. They do seem to provide a catalyst of some importance in bringing out important information and details that might otherwise not be heard.
      TIVSS is treatable in its early stages providing that a bit of an “open mind” remains, and can be found and used.
      TIVSS is untreatable in its late stage as those in this stage close there minds to any comment, suggestion, fact, or suggested alternate opinion that conflicts with there own in any way.
      Those who are not effected by TIVSS know this stage as “you can’t fix stupid”

      I would like to again thank those who have once again provided insight and information that some of the rank and file might not have know or fully understood. I would also like to thank the TIVSS infected for taking their position causing the added outflow and dissemination of knowledge to those there’s of us who were interested.

      You can’t fix stupid!! ……. But, it will sharpen your own argument and facts!

    3. @ Carl P: TIVSS! Oh no… Has the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) been alerted? – Because I think there is an epidemic sweeping through the liberal community. Your comment conjured up visions of one of my favorite zombie shows – The Walking Dead.

      But seriously, that was a hilariously written yet excellent commentary with breakdown. It was a quite an enjoyable read for me and my wife.

    4. @G-Man:
      Funny you should ask! I was just in Warner Robins recently and wondered if the CDC had a sample of this virus in their vaults in Atlanta. When asked they were reluctant to comment but after being pressed admitted that their original TIVSS sample was released … by accident ….some years ago, ……apparently at or near a Democratic National Convention possibly held some time ago in Chicago. If my information is even remotely true , and there do seem to be facts that support it as it would explain the highly restrictive gun laws the are in pace in Chicago and its accompanying state. It might also explain why there are a disproportionate number of State and federal officials from the state of Illinois who have be found guilty of a number of really stupid crimes and sent to jail. Not to mention a state debt that is larger than many countries because they seem unable to control….well, anything! Being an international point of travel the virus spread quickly from there and has since mutated into the various form that we see represented today all over the world.
      The lady I talked to also suggested that the Virus was engineered for the male genome as it was considered the easiest of the two for the virus to effect. She did admit that with close proximity for a prolonged period to either someone infected or if they were to near the the release point that some women can also acquire the illness. She alluded to the possibility that this may be the cause of Diane Fienstiens and several other, then junior California, and New York politicians, fanatical and radical positions. She may have been within several meters of the release point you see. Rumor has it that a certain uber rich ex-Mayor of New York was also in the room or entered shortly after the “accident”.
      She, further lamented that if they had know how virulent this phage was that it would have been classed higher then the Level 1 containment it was considered at the time of the incident.
      I asked if she could give me some idea where it came from. She said that the original sample was discovered in an a privet underground laboratory in Central Europe at the end of WW II. From the few records that remained it was an experimental virus that was to make super solders smarter. Seemed to have had excellent results in smaller primate trials but was an epic failure when tried with humans. It seems that the few human trial survivors were the personal guard of some Chancellor of some historical reput from about 1935 until his death in 44 or 45.

      I’m afraid that we will be unable to put this plague back in it bottle. We can only be aware of it and fight it where ever it flares up in the hope that we can keep it from infecting the majority of the world that remains firmly in the common ground and guided by common sense.
      Pleased you and your wife got a good chuckle from it. I find a certain pleasure writing in this format!
      I’m thinking of a line of Tee shirts ….. TieDye, with block lettering stating “Certified TIVSS — FREE” it would come with a card that asks the question “What US city is found inside of the Distric of Columbia?” If you answer correctly you get an additional 15% off the shirt. Your opinions and suggestions concerning this new business venture whould be appreciated. Maybe a special line of anti BS earplugs made by Scull Kandy?
      But, I digress ……….

  6. Thanks G-man! Usually that instructor is up to speed on everything but I was very disappointed when he couldn’t give me any answer at all. I will be sure to pass this info on.

  7. @ Matt256: First I must say that I am extremely disappointed your instructor was unable to provide you with the appropriate answers. That is his job to answer such questions. He had no business even teaching that course of fire if he is not going to stay current on LEOSA. Assuming you paid for the course, you are due a refund.

    To answer your questions: LEOSA does specifically state that it prohibits items such as machineguns, destructive devices, and silencers. Beyond that it simply applies to ANY firearm that is concealable.

    When it comes to annotating qualification firearm types on your certification card, the gun and caliber you fired in your course of fire should be specifically printed on the card (paperwork). However, according to LEOSA this does not mean that is all you may carry.

    So even though a specific gun model is listed on your card, LEOSA is only concerned with the type. Those types are broken down as either a rifle qualification or a handgun qualification.

    I don’t understand why anyone would want to carry a concealed rifle, but nevertheless, it is covered by LEOSA.

    So to break it down: If you officially qualify with ANY handgun in ANY caliber, you then are authorized under LEOSA to conceal carry ANY handgun in ANY caliber in ANY state. Effectively this allows you to change to any handgun type you own without limitation and without regard to the handgun you actually qualified with. But you may not carry a rifle.

    If however you officially qualify with ANY rifle in ANY caliber, you then are authorized under LEOSA to conceal carry ANY rifle in ANY caliber in ANY state. Effectively this allows you to change to any rifle type you own without limitation and without regard to the rifle you actually qualified with. But you may not carry a handgun.

    And finally, if you qualify annually with both a handgun and a rifle, then ALL the rules above apply for both types of carry. Meaning – you may carry any handgun AND / OR any rifle.

    Keep in mind that some states think they can refine LEOSA rules. A few have adopted their own legislation which limits Active or Retired officers to only ever carry concealed handguns, and are never allowed to carry rifles. However, this usually only applies to their officers that become certified while being a resident within that state, and should not necessarily apply to visiting LEOSA card carriers from other states.

    Regardless of such local legislation, LEOSA does not allow for states to implement such limitations. Were it to be challenged in court, per the Constitution LEOSA would automatically override the conflicting state law as it has already done in the past.

    As for your magazine capacity question, the LEOSA act was amended again in 2010 to expand the definition of “firearm” to include ammunition. This was done to allow ANY ammunition that is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The purpose was to trump any state laws that prohibit hollow-point ammunition like NJ. So while LEOSA magazine capacity has not been tested in a court of law, it can be reasonably assumed this expansion was also intended to protect magazine capacities across each state as well.

    Please keep in mind this law is still cutting teeth. Understand that LEOSA is considered a relatively new statute given it was only signed into law in 2004. However, we have to give Congress kudos for being responsive with amendments that combat state challenges.

    LEOSA has already undergone two amendments in its short existence (2010 & 2013). And with each amendment the scope and rights provided to officers and retirees has been expanded rather than diminished as a result of states losing in court.

    Thus far every attempt that states have made to prosecute an officer, LEOSA has won out and states have had their asses handed to them. So they are learning not to screw with LEOSA. Recently one officer in California not only had his prosecution dropped using LEOSA, but followed up with a one-two-punch by winning a bonus prize of $44,000 in a civil suit.

    The bottom line is that some states have been slow in complying with LEOSA, while other states continue to remain downright belligerent about LEOSA. My point is – nothing will stop a stubborn state from proceeding with your prosecution. So while you will win in the end, what will it have cost you in the meantime?

    You have answered part of your question smartly – that being to research the local laws of states you intend to visit and at least gage whether they appear LEOSA friendly or not. Another great resource is an organization set up to specifically train not just retirees, but they also train cities and states so they can prevent violating the rights of LEOSA card carriers and avoid law suits. They are known as the Sheepdog Academy: http://hr218leosa.com/

    And finally, the NRA stays on top of LEOSA rights and definitions so you may want to review them as a resource as well: http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx

    I know this was rather long, but hopefully this information will help you and other LEOs in this forum.

  8. @ Carl P: Okay now, you cracked me up hard with your last comment. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a person on ANY forum I’ve EVER been on give last rights and a burial as well as you just did to Frantbk on my behalf.

    I have never used someone else’s lines before, but Carl, I will be borrowing yours for future use – if you don’t mind. That was great!

    On a serious note, if Frantbk knew who I really was, he’d be embarrassed for even trying to argue with me. A good comparison would be a burger flipper trying to argue with a brain surgeon about how to properly conduct a craniotomy.

    While Frantbk is busy guessing his way through his personal interpretations over what he thinks he may know about LEOSA, application of laws, and the Constitution, I am using 32 years of real-time career experience that deals with the heart of all these laws, rulings, and procedures on a daily basis.

    I think it painfully obvious by now that Frantbk will continue to argue no matter how much a fool he makes of himself.

    I know I shouldn’t waste my time on people like him, but the reality is I worry other younger or more impressionable readers might buy into his BS and spread the wrong information to others. The thought of that really bothers me, and so I persist. It really has nothing to do with me thinking I could ever really educate Frantbk.

    Anyway Carl, thanks for those remarks… they were extremely funny.

    1. @ G-Man, looks like you do know your stuff. So can I carry my G21 out of state even though I qualified with my G22? From what you have said magazine capacity limits like in NY shouldn’t bother a retired LEO from VA….right?

    2. It was my pleasure to be able to eulogized his passing!
      Please feel free to use my comment to your benefit and convenience!
      I’m pleased you got a chuckle from them.

      Don’t ever think of it as wasting time on someone like him. Continue to think of it as providing the facts. Information is knowledge, Knowledge is Power! Continue to provide your POV and its attending information. It will be absorbed by those that find is value important.

  9. I’m a recently retired LEO. I went to qualify for my nationwide CCP back in June. I asked the lead instructor if I can carry another weapon other than what I qualified with to other states and about going to a state with magazine capacity limits. He said he did not know, that it is still a gray area. He recommended calling a law enforcement agency in the state you are travelling to or through. I think that might be the safe thing to do. No one else in the room knew the answer either.

  10. LOL!
    Frantbk, Ask and you shall receive,

    GM, don’t forget to put a headstone on that grave!

    Thus endith the lesson.

    Did anyone else hear the blade cutting thru the air just before the head was came off?

  11. @ Frantbk: Just curious if you would have really paid me after losing your bet. You’re not even trying to learn something here; you just can’t stand being wrong. I’ve no idea why I’m wasting my time with your ignorance, but here goes… read it and weep; or better yet just go away.

    *******************
    Supremacy Clause:

    Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution and federal law take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

    Reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

    *******************
    Preemption (Trump):

    When state law and federal law conflict, federal law displaces, or preempts state law, due to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. U.S. Const. art. VI., § 2. Preemption applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions.

    Reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Preemption

    *******************
    LEOSA Case Law:

    –The People of the State of New York v. Booth, 862 N.Y.S.2d 767 (2008)

    –State of South Dakota, County of Meade v. Ronald Smith et. al. (Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit CRIM NO. 08-829; 08-830; 08-832) (2008)

    — City of San Fernando v. Reserve Petty Officer Jose Diaz (2007)

    *******************
    Number of U.S. law enforcement officers as of 2008:

    State & Local: 765,000 full-time law enforcement officers
    State & Local: 44,000 part-time (reserve) law enforcement officers
    Federal: 120,000 full-time law enforcement officers

    TOTAL: 929,000 = hundreds of thousands; This is without adding in any retired officers, military police or Coast Guard which takes it well into the millions.

    Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States

    *******************

  12. G-Man
    A federal statute does not become a supreme law of the land just because it is federal law. While the constitution is the supreme law of the land, you sir are misinterpreting Article six. If that were the case then nobody would be able to challenge any law in Court.

    You have heard of the 14th and 10 amendment? As for you conflict argument that federal laws trump State laws. That is not true. That only applies to a State laws conflict with an Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If a federal law is in conflict with an Amendment then the federal law is deem unconstitutional. Therefore, if LEOSA is in conflict with the 14th Amendment, or the 10th Amendment it would be deem unconstitutional.

    G-man I don’t see any court case being quoted by you. so I’ll assume that you don’t know of any. G-man, hundred of thousand of active and retired officers?

    There is no point talking to you about the limitation of the qualification card because you seem to think that a driver license is the same as the LEOSA card. The two do not compare, but in your mind I’m sure they do, but they don’t, if you think about it. Now if you had used the CDL and the LEOSA card comparison we would have something to talk about, but you didn’t so I’m sure you don”t know the difference in the talking points.

    G-man you make broad statements about the supreme law of the land that isn’t true. If LEOSA has won any court case I’ll bet money that it was done so using the Patriot Act as the foundation for the defense of LEOSA.

  13. @ Frantbk: You can disagree all day, but you’d be wrong to do so. Unlike you, I was not stating my personal opinion in regard to LEOSA, I was relaying actual facts. However as a courtesy to you, I will factually provide you a short lesson on why LEOSA (a federal statute), is in-fact considered and bound by legislation as a “supreme law of the land”.

    As a federal statute LEOSA (H.R. 218) falls under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article Six, Clause 2) which establishes the Constitution itself, all federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as the “the supreme law of the land”.

    What this specifically means is that such federally established legislation (laws) is the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system. This article mandates that whenever any state or local laws conflict with a federal law, all judges at every level and in every state MUST instead follow that which has already been established by federal law.

    So you see, the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act” (LEOSA) does in-fact have the Constitutional authority to trump all other laws in all 50 states. Not only is this a fact, but it has already been tried and tested. In each case LEOSA won against each state and in its wake, established additional case law to solidify its standing.

    With that I will iterate, unlike your subjective opinion, I am simply relaying facts that you will just have to accept.

    In addition, I am not sure I follow your line of thought behind commenting that the act has “major limitations” simply because it “requires a qualification card”. Do you possess a driver license? Does it allow you to operate a motor vehicle through all 50 states regardless of your state of issue? Well then, look at the issuance of a LEOSA certification in the same way.

    You appear to be questioning LEOSA as if it is some sort of new concept. So while it may be new to you, please trust it has been in force for many years and is used by hundreds of thousands of active and retired law enforcement officers traveling through all 50 states to carry concealed without regard to each state’s local laws – all while most citizens don’t even know it’s happening.

    Take comfort in knowing the LEOSA credentialing process has been instituted consistently by all law enforcement agencies and is known by all law enforcement agencies throughout the country. It is here to stay.

  14. Seems like the solution is to stay out of Colorado and similar places. Thank God for the gun-friendly Deep South.

  15. I live in Colorado,there is no way to prove that you didn’t have them before and you would also be hard pressed tomfind a cop willing to arrest you for having them. At least in El paso county, also, anywhere you would go-to shoot down here wouldn’t just report you to the authorities. Despite what has happened recently this still isn’t Kalifornia…

  16. I have to disagree with G-Man on this H.R. 218 is the federal “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act” (LEOSA). That act is not the supreme law of the land. While the act can trump State law. It doesn’t sound like it can be applied in a broad manner on every case. Because the Act requires a qualification card by the end user. This Act has major limitations of application. A Court could consider the law to unclear in its purpose to be constitutional.

  17. If the law is unclear about blocking a larger then 15 round magazine to hold only 15. The law should be attack as too open to give clear guidance. The other attack on this law should be that people moving into Colorado should have a right to be compensated by Colorado for the Magazines. because this is a State law and not a uniformed law of the land from one end of the country to the other. Colorado should have to purchase the property because it is legal in most of the 50 States.

  18. One thing about moving to CO now is that it would be obvious that you did not have any mags exceeding 15 rds in your continuous possession here before the law was enacted on 7-1-2013. It appears right now that modifying your mags to only hold 15 rds would be acceptable. Having to disassembling mags to remove a “round limiter” appears to be acceptable. The CO attorney general put out a clarification statement that having a removable base-plate did not make a mag illegal. The mag is only illegal if it holds more than 15 rds so 15 rds or less makes it legal, it become illegal if it is modified back to holding more than 15 rds. I have seen gun shops and gun shows selling 30 rd PMags with a rivet in the side to limit it to 15 rds, and no one has arrested them. I have seen gun shops disassembling PMags and Glock 17 mags and putting all the parts in a bag to sell as rebuild parts kits. I agree with G-Man that to be prosecuted for mag capacity issues you would have to be doing something else to make them really mad.

    1. @ Big E3.

      When I hunted, I used a M1E6 Sniper/Garand 30-.06 (7.62x63mm) Rifle,
      I only carried (3) 8-round clips with me at any given time. And know for a fact, with the exception of one time. Never used more then 8-rounds on a any given hunt. Some of the guys I hunted with carried upwards of 200-rounds or more. I mean if you can’t down a deer with 1-round or a bear with 2-round. You shouldn’t be hunting. Get your meat at the Supermarket or a Butcher’s Shop. I mean, really!

  19. Unless you saved your receipts from when you purchased the magazines, how are you going to be able to prove that they were purchased before or how is Law enforcement going to prove they were purchased after? With the possible exception of one, all mine were purchased beforehand and most of mine were purchased online so I could find a record somewhere but for those who bought them in a local store and didn’t save their receipt what are they to do?

    1. @ Josh: Per the statute a person will NEVER have to prove anything EVER. The law specifically states the burden of proof is 100% upon the prosecution making the charge.

      So unless the prosecution is hell-bent on frying you and is actively willing to take the time to create fake evidence in order to frame you, one will never have a thing to worry about if they did in-fact purchase the magazines legally to begin with.

      And if a person is disliked enough by any prosecutor that one would be willing to risk their career to falsify such evidence for a prosecution, then I’d highly recommend that person reassess their life and seriously consider readjusting whatever they were doing that would ever get someone pissed enough to go after them like that to begin with.

    2. Thanks to G-man for taking the time to provide some depth and clairity to the law as it concerns thus issue! Also thanks for putting the HR218 and its associated legislation at the for front of this conversation. I have now read these statutes in full and have a much better understanding of how that architecture fits into the whole 2nd A discussion. I appreciate both you and CJ’s insights here,

  20. If you are retired from an accredited law-enforcement agency & possess a valid HR-218 card, then we (I am retired NYPD) are exempt from these anti-2nd Amendment restrictions

    1. CJ and GM,
      Purely because I’m interested to know, what is the reasoning behind an HR-218 card and/or LEOSA protection of retired officers? From the comment about being exempt from anti-2ndA restrictions it sounds almost as if its designed to allow for some to be exempt in times of say Marshall law or civil unrest but just the select few. Why not for ex- service personal too? I’m not calling this out, I’m interested in why this exists. I’ll look forward to your replys. Pete sends . . .

    2. @ Pete in Alaska: H.R. 218 is the federal “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act” (LEOSA). Under this federal law the LEOSA allows active and retired law enforcement personal that meets a certain definition under the act to carry a concealed firearm in ANY state regardless of each state or local ordinances to the contrary. The reason is because federal law is the supreme law of the land and therefore trumps any legislation that is subordinate to it.

      The officer must undergo annual certification by their LEA or if retired, find a qualified trainer that provides the same specific course of fire as their previous agency did. They are then issued a card by their agency which identifies them as a LEOSA certified officer.

      This card must be carried along with a current annual weapons qualification card in order to be considered valid. It is in force (valid) in every state and at all times as long as the officer or retiree remains in good standing and weapons qualifies each year.

      H.R. 218 does not dictate to each agency a standard format for the look of the LEOSA card, but it does stipulate the minimum required information the card must contain. There is also no requirement that compels each agency to even issue these cards to their officers, which unfortunately has left some officers without concealed carry protection in other states.

      There are subsection paragraphs in the act labeled 926B and 926C which simply defines the requirements for an active LEO verses a retired LEO. As such, the cards have taken on an unofficial definition accordingly. For example an active officer carries a 926B card while a retired officer carries the 926C card. Both have the same rights in every state, the difference simply identifies a retired officer from an active.

      The law has been update twice since its inception and as recently as 2013, a new amendment to the law now includes all former and current military police and grandfathers all of them as far back as their record permits as long as they can prove 10 or more years in a law enforcement career field.

  21. @ High-Capacity Magazine Person, Feedback.

    Just Mail, FedEX or UPS, them to yourself. Send to yourself empty and load them when you get them. The law says: You Can’t Ship Dangerous Items through the Mail, because of Interstate restrictions. If the the magazines are unloaded, they themselves are NOT dangerous to anyone. It’s a no-brainer.

    1. Do the same with your weapons, break them down and send them piecemeal. That way you don’t draw attention to yourself. If possible send them to a local storage facility, near where your going to be staying. If you stay at a motel/hotel, make sure their addressed to you. The’ll store them for a short period of time, usually 10-days, or less. Try to make your stay date time as close to your shipped date time. That way you can be sure the items are there waiting for you. Also tell the Front Desk, that there might be items being shipped to you at your staying location. DON’T OVER DO YOURSELF. Take and send only those things you really need. With time and practice, you’ll get better at it.

  22. I’d just like to be crystal clear here.
    What your saying is that as long as magazine with a capacity of greater than 15 rounds WAS BOUGHT or OWNED BEFORE THE LAW WENT INTO EFFECT that is is LEGAL to use and possess in the state of Colorado by a resident or visitor. Is this correct!

    1. @ Pete in Alaska: As an LEA I am exempt from such local restrictions when I visit any state – as provided by the federal protections under the LEOSA. However, I still had the same question as you about grandfathered mags.

      After some research, it would appear we are reading that correctly. I just discovered the following excerpt from the statute and pasted below for you and others. It would appear anyone owning a large-cap mag prior to July 1, 2013 may legally continue to possess such a magazine(s):

      COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-12-302.

      (2) (a) A PERSON MAY POSSESS A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE IF HEOR SHE:

      (I) OWNS THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION; 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.

    2. Thank GM,
      I had figured as much but sometimes its just not very clear in this day an age what were going to have to deal with. Thanks for doing the research and finding the statute’s I’m printing this and putting it in my wallet.

      Regards, Pete sends …

    3. Based on this language the law is unenforceable with regard to the 99%+ of all mags that bear no serial numbers or dates whatsoever. If the mag is for a model of firearm that existed prior to 7/1/2013,it will be virtually impossible to prove when any particular magazine was acquired to any degree of certainty. I don’t care when you got it. Simply LIE as needed. There is no obligation to play fair or honest with the fascist scum that enacted this unconstitutional law.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.