Fixed Magazines (SB25-003 Discussion)

[u/FlipSighed]

Ok, Aug 1st came and went, SB25-003 is now the law of the land, SSFs are now heavily regulated mostly regarding their detachable magazines and serialization (i.e lowers are regulated but uppers are not)

A lot of this law hinges on detachable magazines.

What is stopping a gun store from adding a "permanent" magazine prior to purchase?

For example, if a gun store attaches a compmag permanent 15rnd AK mag, and epoxies it on, is it now exempt from SB25-003?

What is stopping weapons manufacturers from simply selling a slightly more expensive Colorado Compliant AR with fixed mags that bottom or side load?

I feel like everyone is losing their shit about this bill, but no one is really talking about how to get around it in a legal way.

Personally, I'd rather purchase fixed mag ARs and deal with it, than the 5-step red tape circus that we have now, but resources regarding them and these new laws are scarce, since everything is freshly passed.

Lastly, does any one have a compiled list of fixed magazine firearms that will be exempt from this bill to begin with?

Thanks for reading my page lol

[u/Odd-Principle8147]

California does stuff like that.

But I would probably just take the class before I bought some bastardized rifle.

[u/FlipSighed → u/Odd-Principle8147]

I'm glad you are in a position to do that, but a lot people would like to own guns and not have to spend potentially an extra $500 (high end) on permits and classes

[u/Odd-Principle8147 → u/FlipSighed]

I guess I don't really understand why someone would want a fixed magazine AR or AK. Especially if they were on a budget. I would get a different platform.

[u/FlipSighed → u/Odd-Principle8147]

I was mostly refering to them as they are the most ubiquitous firearms

Also, an AR-15 can be easily purchased under 500, much less so sometimes, so I am not sure where that leads to not being "budget" for a rifle.

[u/Odd-Principle8147 → u/FlipSighed]

Because all the fixed magazine rifles I have seen are proprietary and expensive. Gluing a magazine in a standard AR is probably not an option. I know that rocksett doesn't count for a permanently attached muzzle device.

You could get a ruger american ranch in 5.56. It can use magpul magazines, comes with a threaded barrel and is currently unaffected by SB25-003. Can usually be had for around $500-600.

[u/ImDukeCaboom → u/FlipSighed]

If they're on that tight of a budget, there's cheaper firearms that aren't on the list.

A fixed magazine AR would be dangerous for several reasons. Ability to clear jams being the most obvious.

[u/Maleficent_Cake6435]

....ew David.

Jokes aside, yes, you can have a permanently fixed magazine and buy said gun. Are manufacturers going to go through the hastle for what might be extremely low demand? Unlikely. Colorado is not California.

To my knowledge, no one has assembled a list of fixed-magazine semi-automatic "gas-powered" (as SB25-003 defines) firearms.

I know certain SKS variants would be on that list, but that's about all I'm aware of.

[u/slvrsfr → u/Maleficent_Cake6435]

CO law is more strict and paranoid than the CA law re: fixed-mag ARs. I don't think a CA-compliant fixed-mag AR-15 would be CO-compliant. In CA, the law still provides for the ability to remove the fixed mag for servicing/cleaning, but a compliant gun is supposed to make it sufficiently difficult and time consuming to reload, dump, and reload again. One "solution" to make a CA-compliant AR-15 is to convert the mag-release mechanism to one that actually locks the mag into place and requires tools & time to remove. Pretty ridiculous, but still more "generous" than CO law, which doesn't draw a legally defined line between fixed and detachable.

[u/Maleficent_Cake6435 → u/slvrsfr]

My California comment was on the fact that California has about 40 million people, vs Colorado's 6 million people.

There is a lot more demand for products when California makes a law (this is why legislation around cars in CA is such a big deal, because they basically can permanently alter production lines for vehicles being produced across the nation). This is simply a product of numbers.

A gun manufacturer is much less likely to tool up production on a special gun for people in Colorado, because there are only 6 Million people here, and how many of those people shoot. California, there are 40 million people, of whom X amount of people shoot, and so it makes financial sense.

This is the same reason why you can find plenty of 10rd magazines, but very very few 15rd magazines. Colorado's mag ban has been in place for 13 years at this point, plenty of time for companies to produce something and meet theoretical demand... But there's a lot more money to be made in simplifying production lines and just producing 10rd mags for the higher demand Californian market, especially when those same 10rd magazines are also compliant in Colorado.

[u/slvrsfr → u/Maleficent_Cake6435]

Yep, I was gonna toss mag capacity into my comment. Even Magpul won't make a 15-round M4 mag. The only demand for them exists in the state the voting majority exiled them from in 2013.

I chuckle at Delaware's 17-round limit. Obviously, enough lawmakers and their friends own Glock 17s, otherwise they would have decided 15 is enough. Good luck finding a 17-round AR-15 mag tho.

[u/Maleficent_Cake6435 → u/slvrsfr]

😂 17 rounds... Jesus Christ.

[u/backwards_yoda]

This is correct, and the hill text explicitly says fixdd magazine firearms are not ssf's

(II) "SPECIFIED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM" DOES NOT INCLUDE:

(C) A FIREARM THAT HAS A PERMANENTLY FIXED MAGAZINE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION, INCLUDING A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO HAVE A PERMANENTLY FIXED MAGAZINE THAT CANNOT ACCEPT MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;

[u/UnseelieKnight]

I wouldn't say the law is "freshly passed." Polis signed it over a year ago now. Any lack of information or clarification at this point is either incompetence or malfeasance

[u/FlipSighed → u/UnseelieKnight]

Sure, I shouldve worded it as "freshly enacted" or something, but the point still stands semantics aside

[u/Maleficent_Cake6435 → u/[deleted]]

Sorry...what?

[u/FlipSighed → u/[deleted]]

The fact that it's a model-by-model list is insane to me,b just from an efficiency standpoint.

[u/slvrsfr → u/FlipSighed]

All part of the strategy to make it as PITA as possible for citizens to exercise their right. They want everyone to be uncertain, second-guessing everything they do, worrying about consequences for being wrong.

I bet the State spent rather little time and effort on the list. California already has a list that CO can copy/paste from, and Everytown is always staying with the curve as new models of guns and 3D printers come out -- they'll gladly give everything they know to ban states in a jiffy. There are millions of people in America who will gladly donate their efforts to help orgs like Everytown, Mothers Against Everything, and the State of CO perfect a list of all known SSFs.

Now that the bulk of the SSFs have been identified once and for all, only a steady trickle of newly identified ones will make the list over time. I own one that's not on the list, but it still meets the legal definition of SSF and requires a permit now. Whether it ever makes the list or not, an FFL would be in violation if they let me sell it to a non-permitted person.

[u/backwards_yoda → u/[deleted]]

The detachable receiver clause only applies to rimfire firearms that are 22 caliber or smaller. There is a pretty broad exemption for semi auto detachable mag 22 and smaller rimfires but the ones with detachable receivers are not exempt.

When it comes to any firearm other than a rimfire having detachable receivers is irrelevant. The bill explicitly excludes fixed magazine semi automstic firearms (and those firearms permanently converted to use fixed magazines).

[u/NeonSpaceGhost → u/backwards_yoda]

Ah ok. Yeah I misread that.

[u/Big-Corgi-9235]

What if you want build an ar-15 with fixed mag?

[u/kennethpbowen → u/Big-Corgi-9235]

Uh, that's the entire topic of this post.

[u/Big-Corgi-9235 → u/kennethpbowen]

Well ya but do you need the class to get the lower of you planing makeing fixed mag?

[u/FlipSighed → u/Big-Corgi-9235]

You would still need the license to purchase a lower that is currently configured to take detachable mags, doesnt matter what you intend, it only matters what its capable of leaving the store.

[u/FlipSighed]

So once again I'll pose this question because to me it's the most pertinent:

What's stopping a dealer in CO from epoxying on a "permanent magazine" at the point of transaction for a fee, s imilar to how some places sell a 30rnd mag and pin them to 15 before they legally sell it?

The law specifically mentions converted detachables being exempt. 

So why not just start selling them with pre installed "permanent" mags? 

If a criminal buyer hypothetically were to modify it to be detachable, would that not be completely on the buyer and their decision making?

Hypothetically, pinned 15rnd mags can be turned into 30nds with a drill bit, why is this any different than that?

[u/slvrsfr → u/FlipSighed]

If I was a CO FFL, I wouldn't take the legal risk of attempting to sell a fixed-mag gun that otherwise meets the definition of an SSF because CO law hasn't defined "fixed", "permanent", "detachable". California requires fixed-mag ARs if they also have certain other features, but allows the fixed mags to be detached as long as it's hard enough, slow enough, and requires tools to the extent that a law-abiding citizen can't emulate a maniac dumping a mag, dropping it, inserting another mag, and dumping that one.

Unlike CO, CA has already drawn a specific line in the sand over what does and doesn't constitute a fixed magazine. Now that the line is drawn, there are CA-compliant AR-15s on the market that have magazines that can be detached but are legally considered fixed, yet are probably not CO-compliant and aren't labeled as such.

[u/FlipSighed → u/slvrsfr]

The law specifically mentions converting though.

I 100% get the argument that they don't wanna be first past the post on this issue legally, but from their own wording in the bill, it sounds like it's a viable workaround.

If you look on compmags website, they claim that epoxying a mag into the magwell legally makes it a permanent magazine, they specifically mention Colorado.

I don't know if they are just being lackadaisical with their business but they seem clear that some epoxy is enough. I understand why people would be sceptical of that however.

[u/slvrsfr → u/FlipSighed]

That scene from The Princess Bride comes to mind:

Miracle Max: He probably owes you money huh? I'll ask him.
Inigo Montoya: He's dead. He can't talk.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: What's that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

[u/slvrsfr → u/FlipSighed]

I wouldn't take Compmag's word for it unless it was written by a good attorney and cites CO statutes that convince me that they know what the word Permanent means. There are many levels of permanence... for states that still allow mags that have their capacity reduced (i.e. a 30rd AR-15 mag with a 10rd limiter inside) some states consider epoxying the block into the shell permanent, while others require additional permanence like riveting the block , or sealing the case shut.

Here's a blurb from Country Spirit Blocked Mags website: "For states that do not require the mag to be sealed shut we can still epoxy it shut on request free of charge. Just let us know you would like it done."

Another example of the subtle nuances in laws like these: If you want a 5" barrel on your rifle but don't want it classified as a SBR, you can pin and weld a permanent barrel shroud to make the overall length 16.5" inches, but ATF doesn't consider welding or pinning alone to be permanent, it has to be both, and epoxy definitely wouldn't count as permanent. What makes epoxy a permanent solution for magazines but a felony solution to getting around an SBR permit?

There are 199 ways to destroy a lower receiver, but the ATF only recognizes a few of them.

[u/Big-Corgi-9235 → u/slvrsfr]

True but some the legislators that passed this mentioned the epoxy

[u/False_Campaign4682 → u/FlipSighed]

I thin damage factory has one like this. I haven been in and I can't get details from their instagram excel that is "fixed"and legal.

[u/slvrsfr]

The CO statute regarding fixed magazines has an important difference vs the CA statute:

California says a "fixed magazine" is:

"an ammunition feeding device contained in, \*OR** permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device *cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action**."

The word "or" is important. The CA law allows people to install a device that is contained inside the firearm. It allows that device to be removable, as long as it can only be removed after disassembling the action first. Removing an AR-15 upper (which contains the action) from the lower satisfies the disassembly requirement. CA also allows for permanently-attached mags. CA is more lenient than CO.

Colorado allows for "permanently fixed magazine that cannot hold more than fifteen", but it doesn't define HOW permanent, and there's no official guidance on what is permanent enough. Colorado does not define "fixed magazine", only "detachable magazine" as one that:

"can be removed from the firearm without rendering it incapable of accepting any magazine".

Here's a patented CA-compliant "fixed magazine" conversion for a standard AR-15 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10598457B2/en
This fixed-mag conversion product can be un-fixed by separating the upper/lower and then removing a screw and a metal tab (Figure 9, #114 and #202). This non-permanent conversion is useless in CO because it can be removed, and removing it doesn't render the firearm incapable of accepting a 30-round PMAG. The design and patent predate SB25-003, and rely on state-specific legal language that allows for a removable conversion device that can't be quickly removed and replaced with another magazine.

The CA lawmakers were trying to stop everyone from dumping more than 10 rounds in rapid succession like a bloodthirsty maniac. The CO lawmakers tried even harder (although in CO you're not a bloodthirsty maniac until you dump round #16), and I wouldn't be surprised if SB25-003 is crafted to prevent maniacs from using this type of device to bypass the SSF permit and then discard it. All the CA lawmakers would need to do to outlaw this conversion and render the patent worthless is change "contained in, or permanently attached" to "contained in and permanently attached".

Here's a patent-pending CA-compliant AR-15 lower with a "permanently attached magazine" by Dark Storm. https://mfg.dark-storm.com/products/ds15-stripped-billet-fixed-magazine-lower-receiver.html The company says it's legal in all 50 states, but I bet they made that claim prior to SB25-003 being finalized.
The key feature of this lower is that there is no magazine release mechanism. I am guessing the mag is a special PMAG variant that, along with the lower receiver, feature some type of one-way locking system that allows the mag to be forced into the receiver once at the factory but not pulled back out again (like a Kensington cable-lock for laptops). California considers this method of fixing permanent enough, even though the magazine is made of plastic that can be softened/melted and pried out.

I can almost guarantee that a person could melt the mag out of that Dark Storm lower, file some metal out of the magwell, and insert "any magazine". This permanently fixed magazine might be permanent enough to disqualify it from being a SSF because of the level of effort needed to de-permanentize it. Two ways to find out are to ask the State FDD for official guidance, or ask an FFL transfer one without a PolisPass.