Colorado Repealing Magazine Ban


The Colorado Senate has been busy in a good way for firearm enthusiasts. This Tuesday, April 12th Senate Bill 113 was put to a vote and passed 20-13. What SB 113 will do for Colorado residents is eliminate the 15-Round magazine capacity limit.

Some of you might be familiar with this poorly-crafted law from 2013. It is the exact reason why Magpul took its company’s headquarters to Texas, and Texas was happy to accept them. They didn’t exit their home state without a fight though. In a phenomenal act of defiance they sold limited edition magazine packs to fund efforts to stop the bill. Magpul has since gone on to grow their company and product offerings significantly while Colorado lost a lot of tax money from a firearms industry icon.

Magpul Limited Edition "Free Colorado" Magazines

Magpul Limited Edition “Free Colorado” Magazines


In order to make SB 113 official law it must now be passed in the Colorado House. Right now it needs to be sent to a committee referral before anything else. At some point in the future it will come to a vote, and residents of the state and all others watching can only hope it passes the House as well.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has already been helping with the push to make this become law. It would be a tremendous victory if the 15-Round magazine capacity limit were to be lifted.

The outdoors, fitness and anything related to firearms are my passions. I am a S&W Armorer, Glock Armorer, reloader and am coping with an addiction to classic S&W and Colt revolvers (by buying more revolvers). I’ve been a guest writer for Sierra Bullets and love long walks to the gun range.


  • Budogunner

    The article title is a bit premature. Nothing is getting repealed until the bill is formally made Law. A lot can still happen that could kill this bill. In the name of Freedom and the US Constitution I hope it passes, but let’s not celebrate yet.

    • Doug Bonds

      To be fair, it’s not the title that’s misleading, rather it’s your presumptions on the English language.
      They used the word “repealing,” which is a present tense, and since they have succeeded in the only steps to the process that have yet been reached, the use of repealing is still accurate. They ARE repealing it. That could fail, but at this point it’s still what is happening.

      • charlesrhamilton

        Passing the House and being signed by the Governor are the only steps that haven’t been reached. Until that happens they are attempting to repeal, but they are not in fact repealing it.

        • Cassie

          Once it’s been completed, it will be repealed (past tense) because it will have already happened. Repealing is correct for a currently ongoing attempt.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            “Attempting to repeal.”

            It is “repealing” between passage and implementation.

            And it won’t happen with this governor and house.

          • S. Plankenberg

            The ban will not be repealed.
            No way.

            Anyone who thinks the magazine ban will be repealed probably believes Hillary will go to prison for the e-mail and Benghazi scandals.

          • Just my .02

            Exactly right. Isn’t it stunning to see the level of ignorance of the language on display here?

      • ccpotter

        That’s like saying you’re winning the lottery, when all that’s happened is you bought a ticket.

        • Just my .02

          No, it’s not. That’s a flawed analogy.

          As explained previously, “repealing” properly refers to the legislative process that’s going on now to “repeal” the bill. The bill is not yet “repealed”; it still has to pass the House, as the article points out. But “repealing” is a multi-step process, and that’s exactly what’s happening. Use of the term is correct.

          It’s a shame what government schools have done to destroy peoples’ comprehension of the language.

          • John1943

            I am horrified every day. At my doctor’s just last week, they made me sign a form which meant almost the exact opposite of what they intended. Never mind, I can now cancel appointments within twenty four hours without being fined (but if I give more than a day’s notice, I have to pay $50.00)

          • Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Repealing is inaccurate.
            It’s either an attempt to repeal or its in the process of Repealing but it isn’t repealing

          • HaveYourCake

            You, like many others, need to go back to school. You didn’t fail, the school did.

          • Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I am shocked and Amazed at your superiority…Hahaha, nope

          • HaveYourCake

            It’s not superiority. It does seem though that I was wrong, it wasn’t the school.

          • Tired of Fools

            That study that said grammar nazis are sad little arseholes has once again been demonstrated to be correct.

          • S. Plankenberg

            WORDS MEAN THINGS.

          • Tired of Fools

            Yes, consider for example this sentence: “S Plankenberg is a tedious like grammar nazi arsehole.” It means you’re an arsehole.

          • S. Plankenberg

            Hey, if you can’t keep up, . . .

          • S. Plankenberg

            But more importantly, am I correct?

          • S. Plankenberg

            But it is so much fun!

            Especially when the targets are so easy.
            Like shooting fish in a barrel.

          • Tired of Fools

            Stop playing lame semantic games. It’s a perfectly good analogy; its only shortcoming is that in the case of buying a lottery ticket there is a chance, albeit slight, of winning. This bill will be vetoed if it manages to pass the House, and the Senate vote did not have enough yea votes to over ride a veto. This bill is dead, they just haven’t pulled the plug on it yet.

          • S. Plankenberg

            Almost every court and legislative ruling nowadays goes against conservative ideas, and will continue to do so for the forseeable future. When Hillary appoints the next 2 justices to the Supreme Court, it will be pretty much over for us.

            STOCK UP NOW.

          • Doug73

            I agree. Which is also why it is a grave miscalculation and DUMB for conservatives to be blocking an Obama SC nominee now. At least now, they have November’s election as leverage on the choice of a nominee. But after Hilary wins (and with Trump or Cruz on the ballet, she will most certainly win), there will be NO leverage. Hilary would then have far more an opportunity to nominate even more liberal nominees, knowing Congress can’t plausibly avoid accepting a nominee for four entire years. The entire thing is gonna backfire for conservatives, and this can be seen from a mile away.

      • Joel

        What is unclear about “Repealing” in the title is whether it is in the present perfect tense, or present imperfect tense. Present perfect, meaning something that is in the present and is completed. Present imperfect, something that is happening in the present but is still in process.

        • Lt_Scrounge

          You should be glad it isn’t in Russian. They have completely different words for different tenses. It has over a dozen words for what we would use the single verb “To go”. It’s a VERY precise language. It used to drive me crazy trying to determine the right word to use. I eventually realized that my Russian improved dramatically with a sizeable quantity of vodka.

      • Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Attempting to repeal is more accurate

    • Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      I agree. Seems a lot of sites are going for headlines that get you to click instead of truth

    • Don’t Tread On Me

      Hey Bro … I think you’re point is exactly what the article said. The headline is a touch misleading.
      We’ll all keep a hopeful eye.

    • Douglas Moose

      “John is walking up the hill.” Is that misleading, too? Does it mean he made it up the hill. or that he is only attempting to walk up the hill.

      John could suffer a heart attack, trip and break something, or simply decide it’s too difficult and turn around. Nothing in the statement implies anything more than he is in the middle of walking up the hill.

      Same for the title. Colorado is repealing the magazine ban. Unless there is a better chance it will fail than succeed based on Senate leaning or Governor’s veto, I think arguing it’s misleading is just wrong.

      • Tired of Fools

        In this example, John is in a wheelchair due to his legs being amputated at the hips and a spinal cord injury.

        There is no “repealing” going on. The repeal attempt is dead on arrival in the House, the Governor WILL veto any repeal bill — the ban was HIS idea — and the Senate aye votes are too few to over-ride a veto.

      • Cymond

        A lot of arguing over language here …

        Fwiw, I think there’s a difference here. Yes, something could go wrong, but that is unexpected and John will probably reach the top. This bill, however, has virtually zero chance of ‘racing the top’.
        So to me, the inferred meaning of the phrase is different based on the reader’s assumptions about the chance of success.

    • S. Plankenberg

      Won’t the governor veto it?

  • Zachary Bradshaw

    This is far from being passed into law. The Senate has been trying to do this now for the last couple sessions. The Democrat held House will most likely not pass this bill, and their Gov will probably veto it, without the majority to override the veto.

    • Doug Bonds

      No one said it had been passed into law

      • Zachary Bradshaw

        The point of my comment was to point out that this is far from being passed. Getting through the Senate is not remarkable, as it has done this before. Now getting through House committee and past a House vote would be something worth getting excited over.

    • evguy2

      House will send it to the kill comittee. If by some snow-ball’s chance in hell it passes that, Governor Chickenfukoor will veto it..

  • We need the fascist laws in California to be overturned now.

    • DwnRange

      Perhaps we should just leave CA alone and send all the fascists there…….. (got no use for them in Texas anyway).

    • KestrelBike

      Places like CA and NY will outlast even the downfall of the US Constitutional Republic; they’ll never be saved.

      • ChierDuChien

        They will end up like Venezuela.

    • USMC03Vet

      Minus the feds doing massive raids against political powers, judges, and enforcers in California nothing is going to change over there regarding the blatant infringement of 2nd amendment rights.

  • USMC03Vet

    It will die in committee.

  • Ian Thorne

    Sensationalist bullshit title. This is still very much expected to fail.

    • smartacus

      i agree.

      The title’s wording definitely was not a mistake and
      COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a mistake.

      Impossible for a journalist to have poor command of the English language like that.
      It was not optimistic, and certainly not a clever double entendre; it was just false.

      “Colorado Repealing Magazine Ban” cannot mean anything else but exactly that.

      if the title were “Coloradan Giving Birth”;
      it cannot mean the birth may or may not stall midway

      • Bill

        How about “In Process” of repealing magazine ban? Would that make you feel better? Why is it that anytime antigun legislation is introduced people assume that it’s going to pass and more chunks of sky will fall, but something like this is dumped on as bullshit that will go nowhere?

        • smartacus

          i did not mean for you to misunderstand it as a comment about EPA legislation.
          Let me rephrase what i wrote above:

          The title’s wording definitely was not a mistake and
          COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a mistake.

          Impossible for a journalilst to have poor command of the English language like that.
          It was not optimistic, and certainly not a clever double entendre; it was just false.

          “Colorado Repealing Magazine Ban” cannot mean anything else but exactly that.

          if the title were “Coloradan Giving Birth”;
          it could not mean the birth may or may not be happening.

        • Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          That would be in fact, an accurate portrayal of what is happening

      • John1943

        “if the title were “Coloradan Giving Birth”;
        it cannot mean the birth may or may not be happening”

        What happens if a woman giving birth is suddenly vaporized by a suicide bomber? Has the birth actually happened? Or does the process of giving birth come to an end without the birth happening?

        • smartacus

          No, the birth did not actually happen
          Yes, the birth was actually happening

    • Doug Bonds

      Absolutely accurate title. Repealing is present tense, and so far in the process they’ve succeeded.

      If you’ve nothing better to do than be an Internet article title police officer, at least learn the language first.

      • Holdfast_II

        If I say that I am in the process of “rowing across the Pacific” but I am actually attempting to do that using an old bathtub as a boat, in typhoon season, with no supplies, and therefor have a 0% chance of making it, isn’t my statement kinda misleading?

        • Bill

          Sounds a little like all those naïve souls who think that there will ever come a time when the NFA is repealed. Every time I mention this I am pilloried or branded a traitor but the reality is that it will never, ever, EVER happen. The time to fix a bad law state or federal is before the mechanisms are in place to railroad it through.

      • Shocked_and_Amazed✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        It is an attempt to repeal, it isn’t accurate to use repealing

    • NofDen

      Yes, it may not pass but one thing is probably guaranteed. Democrats don’t know facts about guns. Anything that will cost gun people more money or give them another reason to arrest gun people is their goal.

  • Big Daddy

    Once in certain places the dumbocrats see that they can not get elected they will change. It’s more complex than that but a lot of these laws will disappear with a republican president. Places like New York city and Chicago, LA will never change but the rest of the country can and will.

  • aweds1

    This law passed because Democrats had a trifecta victory in 2012 winning the Senate, House and Governorship. They could pass whatever they wanted and they did. Even the recall elections that followed that tossed three Democrats out of office could not change the outcome of laws that had already passed. You’d need a GOP trifecta victory to overturn it. Democrats still control the House and the Governorship today. This is an entirely misleading title by TFB. Leave the politics to other sites, please.

  • John L.

    Whatever happened to the “firearms not politics” motto?

    • ARCNA442

      You must have a different idea of what politics means than I do. This article provides factual information in an apolitical manner (other than a slight bias towards guns are good – but it would be rather odd to find the opposite on a site called the Firearm Blog).

      Ignoring the fact the firearms are highly regulated by multiple levels of government is a good way to get in trouble with the law. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for this site to include articles about aspects of law regarding firearms ownership. In fact, it would be almost irresponsible not to given the number of ways a new firearms owner could inadvertently break the law.

      • John L.

        If it were a done deal I might agree with you.

        However, it’s not yet, and never may be, and all of the determining factors are political.

        The title is misleading at best and the subject remains squarely in the political arena at the moment.

    • abecido

      Sadly, “firearms not politics” is as possible as “digestion not excrement.” As long as there exists a movement – fully embraced by one political party – to destroy the right to own firearms they will be an inherently and inescapably political subject.

    • USMC03Vet

      You know damn well that is an oxymoron. Force is the ultimate political power. Without it politicians would be powerless.

  • Jack R.

    There’s ZERO chance, if it were to pass the House, that the retarded Governor would sign it. None. Bloomberg and the NWO own that wimp.

  • nate

    Better than the way California is going.
    Why can’t repeals happen over here instead of further useless constriction

  • John

    The magazine ban is the only reason I don’t live in Colorado. Sure the outdoors are beautiful and conducive to a healthy lifestyle, but I could never give up my standard capacity mags!

  • stephen

    Title is misleading – come TFB stop this type of stuff.

  • Cal S.

    Sadly, the story is always the same. Our senate passes it, then the Democrat-controlled house sends it to a kill-committee where it dies before it makes it to the floor.

    However, this is an election year where the house could very well switch to the Republicans if enough is made of this folly. So, it might make it out after all. I’m hoping and praying it happens! If not, there’s always next session, provided we muscle our weak-kneed idiot governor into signing it when passed.

  • DanGoodShot

    Now… if we could get this to happen in Connecticut… ahhh one can dream…

  • Audie Bakerson

    Now everyone needs push the fat cats in (or better yet: the ones heading to) Washington to repeal the NFA and GCA.

  • commenter1

    United States Repealing Obamacare
    (Writing headlines is FUN!)

  • livingonenergydrinks

    I agree the title is bad. Should have been “Colorado Trying to Repeal Magazine Ban”. Instead like the other monday morning quarterbacks stated, they sensationalized the title. At least they didn’t start it off with “Shocking Report”

  • JP

    That was last year. But the same thing is going to happen again. It will go to committee and be killed.

    • Crap. You are right – been doing “2015” taxes and my brain is fried. Thanks for the correction.

  • makinthemagic

    A 15 round limit might as well be 10 as that’s going to be the highest capacity available under the legal limit for a lot of firearms.

    • mig1nc

      I feel sorry for our friends behind enemy lines. But at least 15 rounds gets you standard capacity Glock 19 mags, M&P40 magazines, CZ based compacts (P-01, PCR, and their clones) get standard capacity magazines. Standard Beretta magazines. Mostly ARs get the shaft.

  • Bill Catz

    I seriously doubt that our commie liberal owned governor will sign this into law even if both the house and senate pass it.

  • As a colorado resident I can only hope and write a letter pushing my rep to do it.

  • Geralt_0f_Rivia

    It already got killed in the General Assembly’s HSAC, the upside is that the mag ban is still unenforceable and that’s not going to change.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    “Attempting to repeal.”

    • Just my .02

      No need for the extra verbiage for people who understand the language.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        When does this repeal take effect?

        Words mean things.

        If you have any questions, you might wish to google my name.

  • Haywood Jablome

    Dickenlooper will veto. He has his eyes on national office. Oh yeah, and he’s an idiot.

  • DM

    Hickenlooper is Bloomberg’s lapdog, but this attempted repeal is unlikely to pass the house. Most house members couldn’t identify a magazine in a diagram. Thanks to these ill informed nannies, we’re all so much safer.

  • Jon Goodwin

    Wow, who knew there were so many English language experts?? Y’all need to lighten up and go to the range.

  • Powderburns

    This bill was DOA. Republicans only have a one vote majority in our Senate, and the Democrats control the House. The Bill will go nowhere. It is an election year ploy by the Republicans. They can’t do anything, so they float Bills that have appeal, but no chance of going forward. Do better research before you publish material like this.

    • ciscokid3750

      Thank you for your post. I rather thought that any anti-gun bill past never has a snow balls chance in Hell of ever being repealed. The frightening thing is that when something like this bill got past in Colorado it means that it also could be passed anywhere else too.

      • Tired of Fools

        Colorado was once a free state. That ended years ago. Now it’s just New Jersey with scenery.

  • Chuck McKinney

    I’m glad I live in Arizona…..

  • Just my .02

    It’s only ambiguous if your English skills are weak. Some of us still understand and can use the language properly, but there are fewer and fewer of us left, given the abysmal job being done in government schools and the disastrous effect of cellphone “texting”.

    • TJ

      Nope. Just ambiguous.

    • Tired of Fools

      The only person you’re impressing with your alleged “English skills” is yourself.

  • t0066jh

    and Higgenpooper is gioing to sign it, right?

  • Bill

    Too little, too late (if this is even being correctly reported, which I doubt). I’ll be staying in Utah, where such an idiotic law would never be passed in the first place. Kudos to Magpul for voting with their feet.

  • Bill

    He is-from the neck up.

    • SirOliverHumperdink


  • Ken

    Stupid semantics, got my hopes up that the idiots in this state could actually repeal this idiotic law. You know, because criminals will oeby the law. The Aurora theater shooter was already breaking the law by owning an AR15 in the Denver city limits. Did that stop him from murdering a bunch of people? If only murder was illegal… :rolleyes:

  • Steven Hickman

    To late Magpul moved their business out of Colorado because of the ban.

  • Stomper

    Repeal, repealed, repealing…. I wanted to go elk hunting there, but not ONE DIME will I put into that leftist dominated state until they pull their heads from their unconstitutional ideological arses…. Until they make it right, Screw Colorado!

  • NofDen

    My understanding is the House is the problem to pass. I also pray it will pass and stop this ridiculous assault on gun products.

  • WRBuchanan

    Even if it passes they still lost 1500+ jobs one of which was a good friend of mine who moved there specifically to work for Magpul.
    This is what happens when you let Democrats control your lives. Although the recent Delegate BS the Republican Party pulled was not too much better..
    Time to blow up the system! We are being manipulated so badly it’s criminal. Needs to stop !!!
    Go Trump !!!.
    Oh, and for you Cruz Supporters,,, Cruz worked for the Bush’s, went to Princeton just like the Bush’s and is still working for the Bush’s /Illuminati so it ain’t over.
    The only way it happens is if Trump makes the 1237 before the convention. We will never have another chance to reform our Govt to “by the people, for the people” in the future. If it doesn’t get changed now it will never happen and your kids, and their kids, will be slaves.
    Better think about this long and hard before you waste your vote trying to stop Trump. You’re being suckered in by the biggest Carleton in recent history and the result will be the continued downfall of this country. You’re voting to keep things as they are and you are a fool to do so.
    Cruz is Establishment! Just Google his history!

  • Jeff

    It’s a nice thought, but I’m not gonna hold my breath… not with Hickenlooper – who very notoriously rode Bloomberg’s coattails to get that bill passed to begin with – still in office. Unfortunately, I think the fact that it passed in the first place is a strong indication of where efforts to repeal it will wind up.

  • RPK

    Any state that would legalize marijuana and put limitations on firearms or accessories is REALLY screwed up!

    • Matt Russian Roulette

      Thats what I think as well.

  • RSG

    Here’s a thought- any legislator (fed or state) that writes legislation that is later to be found as an unconstitutional infringement, MUST be prosecuted for treason and if found guilty, subjected to the death penalty. I’m pretty sure that overnight we’d see the end of those attempting to undermine our constitution and we’d be enjoying the restoration of our God given liberties.

  • Tommy

    I think Colorado has been smoking to much of their own weed. The damage is done and what manufacturer would move back in to their state. The trust element is gone.

  • sean

    I really don’t think Colorado is missing out on “A lot of Tax money”. They seem to be doing just fine without the gun industries taxes.

    • DM

      You are correct. The tax on pot more than makes up for losing any revenue from Magpul moving to TX. Besides that, many full capacity magazines continue to be manufactured here in CO by subcontractors for Magpul and Hexmag. As far as our hypocritical CO legislature is concerned, it is OK to build full cap mags here and export them to other states. Although the assembled mags can’t be sold here, the state keeps the manufacturing jobs. The CO mag ban is stupid, inconvenient and unenforceable, but for those that don’t want to drive up to WY, there are legal 30rd mag kits available locally. Hexmag offers 15rd AR mags for those that feel intimidated by Bloomberg’s ventriloquist dummy, Hickenlooper. Take a ride up to WY, load up and continue to shoot full cap mags in Colorado. Say F.U. to the clueless CO legislature with every shot over 15.

  • Robert Hyannis

    Colorado don’t need no stinkin’ manufacturing jobs, they’s gots lotsa pot. Roll a blunt & who cares?

  • MrSottobanco

    leftists in Colorado would rather have people frying their brains with pot than have a great business in the firearms industry. Derp!

  • Chad Conroy

    Ahh the good old interwebz.. I love how the comments just completely side step the actual topic in favor of an anecdotal debate over grammar and syntax.

  • Kivaari

    It will be a good thing if the repeal goes through. Colorado lost quite a bit of tax revenue as a result of the ignorance of democrat lawmakers.

  • Mazryonh

    Have there been any studies about whether or not legal requirements for bullet buttons and magazine round limits have any effect on gun violence?

    This article got me wondering about what it would take for the 7-round magazine limit in NY to be repealed. Seven rounds seems a little odd, given that NYC gave birth to the term “New York Reload” (carrying several guns and switching them out instead of reloading) back in the days when American police were routinely issued revolvers.

    Also, aren’t there still some police forces who go a step further and only issue 5-shot revolvers, such as in Japan?

  • Barry Cole

    These jackwads could kill it, but it’s playing well. Keep talking g to senetors.

  • Sinbad 1

    Tried to post a link of Hilary agreeing gunowners are terrorist, google it, was released today. but some hero decided to delete it competition thing I guess.

  • S. Plankenberg

    Adam – What makes you think this ban is going to be repealed?
    Doesn’t Colorado still have a Democrat governor that will veto the boll if it comes to his desk? If so, the ban will remain in place.

    The Colorado senate voting to do so is a far cry from making it happen.

    If I were a Liberal Democrat leading the fight to keep the ban in place, I would do everything I could to delay the repeal effort until there is another multiple-victim shooting, THEN let the repeal come up for a vote in the wake of all the news coverage of the shooting. ( We all know how that will go ) I would do this knowing time and the news media is on my side because there WILL be another shooting, and there will be a lot more people pressuring the pro-gun representatives to let the ban stand.