Pages

Jump to bottom

17 comments

1 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 9:37:00am

Also, how are they defining shotgun shell? The availability of Aguila 12 gauge 1 & 3/4 inch mini-shells on the market could easily make them the standard by which capacity is measured. Any prosecutor could easily make that argument with a straight face.

2 Locker  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 9:49:40am

First of all a pump shotgun is not semi-automatic which means “self loading”. If you have to pump the damn thing then it’s not self loading.

Second of all what kind of whiny bullshit is this? The whole point is that a citizen who buys a gun and then modifies it to hold more shells takes the risk of it being banned. Duh. Unscrew the fucking extension morons.

This is like some idiot complaining that his car is banned because he’s running banned wheels. Change… the fucking.. wheels.

I won’t even get into the fact that there are plenty of existing plug laws which restrict the amount of ammo which can be carried in a shotgun for this or that purpose.

3 Gus  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 10:05:24am

Here’s the bill: [Link: www.leg.state.co.us…]

PDF

4 shecky  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 10:10:22am

Sounds like a made up controversy. This is like crying that Glocks will be banned in CA, since Glock magazines with greater than 10 round capacity exist. Whatever the merits of that CA restriction, nobody claims that the ability of a Glock to accept high cap magazines will make them subject to ban.

5 Political Atheist  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 10:19:16am

re: #2 Locker

I think you missed it.
The language includes pump and semi auto, because the definition is all about the tube magazine. Most of the pump shotguns can accept an extension, and so that design is out. Regardless of the action. Putting in a plug makes no difference given the language chosen. It can still accept an extension.

So a gun with plugs would still be banned.

6 Locker  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 10:24:39am

I didn’t say a plug would stop anything. My point is that crying about reduced ammo capacity is bunk since plugs already restrict ammo capacity in tons of situations and everyone is just fine with it.

Additionally I’m quite sure that if a shotgun is so easily modified to accept more rounds then it can just as easily be modified NOT to accept the extension.

Another non-issue being spun into a fear monger tornado.

7 Political Atheist  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 10:42:29am

re: #6 Locker

Well right not a tornado, just a call for an adjustment in the language. AFAIK anyway.

8 Varek Raith  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 4:11:55pm

It only becomes high capacity when you screw on an extension.
Pro tip; Don’t screw on an extension and your within the law.
Simple.

Also, the title of the page is highly misleading. This is why gun advocates are finding it hard for people to trust them.

9 Achilles Tang  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 4:34:10pm

Why does anyone need more than two shells in a shotgun? Do the birds stick around for eight or fifteen? Can’t hit a burglar from 10 feet with two?

What?

10 Jimmah  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 5:38:42pm

re: #9 Achilles Tang

Why does anyone need more than two shells in a shotgun? Do the birds stick around for eight or fifteen? Can’t hit a burglar from 10 feet with two?

What?

Watch “Taken 2” and learn! //

11 Dark_Falcon  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 6:28:24pm

re: #8 Varek Raith

The way the bill is written, that isn’t true Varek. The ban applies if the design is “readily convertable”. The gun is banned if it can be converted, not if it has already been converted. So even if you have no extensions and have a plug for the magazine, the gun is still banned.

And further Goddamnedfrank made a good point above:

re: #1 goddamnedfrank

Also, how are they defining shotgun shell? The availability of Aguila 12 gauge 1 & 3/4 inch mini-shells on the market could easily make them the standard by which capacity is measured. Any prosecutor could easily make that argument with a straight face.

The bill as written doesn’t define what the length of shell used for determining capacity will be. And like GDF, absent a revision to the bill to insert that definition, I can see a prosecutor using smaller shells to argue the law was violated. For that matter, such vagueness might get the law thrown out by the courts as too vague to pass constitutional muster.

12 Tigger2  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 6:39:11pm

Were I live you can only have 3 shotgun shells in you gun, If it is designed to hold more then 3 then you have to get a plug so you can only put 3 shells in, It has been that way since I was 14 I’m 60 now.

13 goddamnedfrank  Sat, Mar 2, 2013 11:26:07pm

re: #12 Tigger2

Were I live you can only have 3 shotgun shells in you gun, If it is designed to hold more then 3 then you have to get a plug so you can only put 3 shells in, It has been that way since I was 14 I’m 60 now.

Where do you live? I ask because if it’s any US state then you’re erroneously conflating your State’s hunting regulations with what you can have in your gun at home.

14 hambone  Sun, Mar 3, 2013 1:20:03am

re: #10 Jimmah

you know that’s a movie not real life.

15 Jimmah  Sun, Mar 3, 2013 3:28:42am

re: #14 hambone

you know that’s a movie not real life.

Good grief.

16 Dark_Falcon  Sun, Mar 3, 2013 5:11:51am

re: #14 hambone

you know that’s a movie not real life.

And you saw the “//” sarcasm tag, yes? Jimmah was joking.

17 Varek Raith  Sun, Mar 3, 2013 6:35:29am

re: #11 Dark_Falcon

The way the bill is written, that isn’t true Varek. The ban applies if the design is “readily convertable”. The gun is banned if it can be converted, not if it has already been converted. So even if you have no extensions and have a plug for the magazine, the gun is still banned.

And further Goddamnedfrank made a good point above:

re: #1 goddamnedfrank

The bill as written doesn’t define what the length of shell used for determining capacity will be. And like GDF, absent a revision to the bill to insert that definition, I can see a prosecutor using smaller shells to argue the law was violated. For that matter, such vagueness might get the law thrown out by the courts as too vague to pass constitutional muster.

Ohhhh…..
That’s what I get for not reading.
Sorry.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 73 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1