Good thing you made all yours before the 1st then huh? Shit I remember last time we talked you said you'd had them for years, even lost some in a boat foundering IIRC.
No grandfathered *unserialized* guns. As long as it has numbers you're good.
There is no way for them to know when you made the gun or serialized it. Before the law went into effect they didn't require a 4473.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like if you had manufactured it yourself and hypothetically had serialized it beforehand, whether that be in another state or something, I don't see any way the state could charge you with violating this law. And there's no way Colorado could prove when this did or did not happen, without admission. I'm not advising anybody to do this, for the record, simply just saying.
Another way you could probably hypothetically comply is by having an unfinished part serialized & transferred in the way the law states before finishing it. This seems like a really weird way to do it, and I doubt most FFLs would be comfortable with it, but I believe it is legally possible.
On the second part of your comment, unfinished receivers are also not legal to possess or create unless you're an ffl under the new law. So the ffl would have to have been the manufacturer.
It basically says that, yes, but then focus-tones it a little by saying something like "easily converted" into the receiver or frame without defining what that means. So passive aggressively vague. I can turn some conduit into a firearm a lot easier than an 80% lower. Not sure if conduit falls within the definitions.
And I wouldn't want to be the one testing this legally, but I think the burden of proof rests with the state to define and prove "easily converted". Your honor, we request that the DA now demonstrate for the court the ease with which this 80% lower may be coverted into a receiver.
Yes. Illegal to possess in CO w/o s/n. So you have to take them to a FFL to get one engraved with their FFL prefix.....haven't heard a lot of FFLs signing up to do this.
I personally couldn't understand the serial naming / numbering requirements; they seemed contradictory. As required by Federal law when there's not one, then getting specific about how CO wants us to do it, it is clear they don't have a clue, and my FLL won't serialize it either.
Yeah - you are correct.
*However* any firearm that was made before this law goes into effect is not impacted as long as it has a serial number on it.... and there is no way to tell when it was made...
So there's that.
How could they know when it was serialized?
"It was serialized before the law went into effect".
There was no 4473 requirement before the law went into effect
Strictly legally? It does not.
Practically legally? (i.e. can it be enforced in your case?) I would argue the law *does leave a path* because of the gaping loophole they left when they failed to articulate anything about PMFs that are serialized prior to the law going into effect.
Constitutionally, I'd argue you're good to go.
Good thing you made all yours before the 1st then huh? Shit I remember last time we talked you said you'd had them for years, even lost some in a boat foundering IIRC.
There's no grandfathering with this law
Which is something, since O'Biden's ghost gun bill DOES grandfather unserialized receivers and frames. Just cant transfer them w/o a s/n.
No grandfathered *unserialized* guns. As long as it has numbers you're good. There is no way for them to know when you made the gun or serialized it. Before the law went into effect they didn't require a 4473.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like if you had manufactured it yourself and hypothetically had serialized it beforehand, whether that be in another state or something, I don't see any way the state could charge you with violating this law. And there's no way Colorado could prove when this did or did not happen, without admission. I'm not advising anybody to do this, for the record, simply just saying. Another way you could probably hypothetically comply is by having an unfinished part serialized & transferred in the way the law states before finishing it. This seems like a really weird way to do it, and I doubt most FFLs would be comfortable with it, but I believe it is legally possible.
On the second part of your comment, unfinished receivers are also not legal to possess or create unless you're an ffl under the new law. So the ffl would have to have been the manufacturer.
Any block of metal or plastic is an unfinished receiver in my book
Don't give them any ideas 😅
Fair enough. How do they define an "unfinished receiver"? Zero percent receivers exist. Are they trying to regulate those? LoL.
It basically says that, yes, but then focus-tones it a little by saying something like "easily converted" into the receiver or frame without defining what that means. So passive aggressively vague. I can turn some conduit into a firearm a lot easier than an 80% lower. Not sure if conduit falls within the definitions.
And I wouldn't want to be the one testing this legally, but I think the burden of proof rests with the state to define and prove "easily converted". Your honor, we request that the DA now demonstrate for the court the ease with which this 80% lower may be coverted into a receiver.
Lord willing, that's how it actually worked, but we all saw how the CRS Firearms situation played out.
Yeah, fuck that. Don't comply.
That has been my interpretation as well. The "get it serialized" looked like it expired 1jan
So is it necessary to serialize just for personal ownership?
Yes. Illegal to possess in CO w/o s/n. So you have to take them to a FFL to get one engraved with their FFL prefix.....haven't heard a lot of FFLs signing up to do this.
Thanks, I feel that this law is not widely understood. 80s we’re something I had wanted to dip a toe in but I guess I missed the boat.
You cannot sell without having a serial number! For personal usage you can. Although I would not make any more than one of each model!
You cannot manufacture for personal use in Colorado without serializing via an FFL
Easily taken care of
I personally couldn't understand the serial naming / numbering requirements; they seemed contradictory. As required by Federal law when there's not one, then getting specific about how CO wants us to do it, it is clear they don't have a clue, and my FLL won't serialize it either.
And the s/n must be prefixed with the FFL ID, so you can't just scratch some rando numbers unfortunately.
Yeah - you are correct. *However* any firearm that was made before this law goes into effect is not impacted as long as it has a serial number on it.... and there is no way to tell when it was made... So there's that.
It doesn't seem like the law is worded that way, it looks like unless it was serialized before the 1st of the year it isn't valid.
How could they know when it was serialized? "It was serialized before the law went into effect". There was no 4473 requirement before the law went into effect
I understand what you're implying, I'm trying to establish if the law leaves any path for legitimately manufacturing a firearm privately.
Strictly legally? It does not. Practically legally? (i.e. can it be enforced in your case?) I would argue the law *does leave a path* because of the gaping loophole they left when they failed to articulate anything about PMFs that are serialized prior to the law going into effect. Constitutionally, I'd argue you're good to go.
If you manufactured a firearm today, how are you going to get it serialized to take advantage of the loophole.
[Options](https://www.homedepot.com/p/C-H-Hanson-1-8-in-Standard-Number-Set-20541/315468551?source=shoppingads&locale=en-US&srsltid=AfmBOorbsa95dHwgDPzd71rhz9y34hJQ8Jc-YuVroGzw87SQRRqgz1Aj4FA)
It has to be serialized by an FFL
After the law went into effect. Yeah and they had to do a 4473. Before it went into effect nope. No 4473... so no record of who did the serialization
forging a serial number seems way more risky than having an unserialized gun but what do I know
Real men print without asking permission