Conversion not valid in Colorado. The Colorado magazine ban is worded in such a way that essentially all detachable magazines with a removable floor plate are “readily convertible” to a prohibited configuration. In my case, even though my Glock 19 magazine holds 15 rounds, there’s an easily available and cheap extension to make it a 17 round magazine. So it’s readily convertible, and thus unlawful to have in Colorado. Most other magazines with a detachable floor plate, which is most detachable magazines, are also likewise prohibited.
17 thoughts on “Floor Plates on Pistol Mags”
Comments are closed.
Wow, that’s actually WORSE than NJ!
It’s my understanding that that is the case here in NY as well. We have similar wording in the law, but no one seems to be pointing this out.
“23. “Large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt,
drum, feed strip, or similar device, that (a) has a capacity of, or that
can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of
ammunition,”
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article265.htm#p265.00
So, the new MAIG funded venture will be a company that patents extended floor plates for every known magazine design. And makes just enough that they exist.
I guess welding floor plates will be in great demand. That should make the bastards go crazy.
I pointed this out to my Rep, who was further appalled, and my Senator, who didn’t think it was a big deal. The interpretation is that pretty much any detachable magazine with a detachable floor plate will be illegal in CO after July 1.
Which means that no pistol that accepts a detachable magazine may be sold in CO with a magazine included.
The Colorado Attorney General released an opinion that the readily convertable language meant that the magazine was designed to be converted to a larger capacity. Thus his argument was that the Glocks’ removable floorplate magazines were readily convertable but a magazine whose floorplate was removable just for cleaning would not be so considered.
However, an opinion by the Colorado Attorney General carries little weight – as an aside, the previous CO AG who is now Interior Secretary wrote an opinion that the University of Colorado could override the Colorado CCW statute but the Colorado Supreme Court took the opposite position – and county District Attorneys in Colorado do not report to him and take no direction from him. So its essentially meaningless.
LC Scotty
Odds are the bill language for both NY and Colorado did not originate from the respective legislatures, but was “model legislation” presented by lobbyists from either MAIG or LCAV. (I think LCAV may have renamed themselves recently). So basically Colorado bowed down to special interests from outside Colorado, either from NYC or San Francisco.
Unless the law gets overturned, looks like I’m bringing my 1911 to Colorado. Welded floorplates. Only to visit my parents. Spending a minimum of tourist dollars.
Okay, I see the point of the argument. But this isn’t actually new language.
The new CO language (could be “readily restored or converted to accept” >15 rds) and NY language (ditto, >10 rds) are identical to the language of the former federal AWB, 18 USC 921(31)(A).
And wasn’t it uncontroversial from 1994-2004 that a 10 rd (i.e. neutered) Glock 19 mag was compliant with the federal AWB, even though it had a detachable floor plate?
Sincere question.
Did +2/+5/+whatever mag extensions not exist in 1994-2004, so the issue didn’t come up?
I’ll answer this in a separate post since there seems to be some confusion.
In the 94-04 time frame the mag ban only applied to rifles AFAIK. In CO, I expect that unless you are involved in a mass shooting, the size of the magazine in your CCW piece will not be an issue.
The only exception to this will be in Denver county which takes the position that the state constitution does not apply to them. The state supreme court has sided with Denver on this repeatedly.
The other part of this is that if you had the magazine before July 1 this year, it’s O.K. and if the mag does not have a manufacturers date on it, it is presumed to have been in your possession all along, and thus is legal.
Incorrect, Bill. Federal 1994 AWB applied to pistols and shotguns as well. The magazine ban part of the law didn’t care what gun it was for, which is why .45ACP made such a comeback, along with really small 9mms — if you can only have 10 rounds, either go with big bullets in the same size gun, or go with the same bullets you used to use, but in a gun half the size.
There was also a BIG interest in finding “compatible” mags from older guns that fit newer designs, especially since ATF ruled that, so long as it still fit and worked in the originally intended gun, you could cut new mag catch slots, etc., that coincidentally allowed this pre-ban mag to fit a post-ban pistol.
For that matter, I remember looking into whether 10 round P229 .40S&W mags would work as 13 round P228 (9mm) mags. Consensus was the feed lip geometry was wrong — might work a bit, but reliability was iffy.
I knew a lot of people who either switched to a 1911 after 1994 or who started carrying a compact pistol based on an older full size, so they could get the more available (and thus cheaper) full size mags, which they carried as reload mags, with the 10 round “Clinton Clip” riding in the holstered gun.
Mea Culpa then. At that time I didn’t own any auto pistols or rifles but I seem to remember that Dianne Feinstein was behind the 10 round limit which gave birth to the “wonder nine”, “pocket rocket”, or “Feinstein” as the small nines were called. Dianne got all in a snit over the advent of those easily concealed pocket pistols which she basically designed.