Hey PSA, why can't I order a Dagger frame/receiver? It says Colorado has imposed shipping restrictions, but Colorado's new law specifically exempts striker fire and recoil pistols from the new requirements.

What's going on?

Edit: simple blowback pistols are technically covered by the law because of how the law defines "gas-operated", but recoil and striker-fire pistols are not covered by the law.

Edit 2: Seems to have abated itself?

This might be super unpopular, but it needs to be said here, and I couldn't find evidence it had before, so...

Protect yourself, your friends, brains, and your children from lead. Shoot as unleaded as possible.

People who go shooting regularly, and especially people go shooting indoors, have been shown to have significantly elevated levels of lead. We're talking like 20x what it should be.

If you're pregnant, trying to get pregnant, or breast feeding you shouldn't be going to a shooting range at all, and kids really shouldn't be either unless it's outdoors and you're shooting exclusively unleaded rounds. Lead is stored in bones and can be passed through breast milk. The lead in the primer is aerosolized when a gun is fired and gets all over the gun, your hands, your clothes, and you can breath it in.

Full metal jacket bullets have the lead portion of the bullet exposed to the hot gasses when a gun is fired and so that is also aerosolized inside the gun and outside when the hot gasses push the bullet out of the barrel.

For unleaded bullets, best to use rounds with non-lead primers and either zinc/copper bullets, frangible bullets made of copper/zinc, or open tip rounds (these still have lead, but the bottom portion of the lead round is sealed from the powder and protected from the hot gas when fired).

Wash your hands with cold water and delead soap after shooting and cleaning, clean your firearm with gloves on and not anywhere you eat. Wash your clothes in a separate load from anyone at risk, and have a pair of range shoes. Shoot outdoors whenever possible.

There is no safe level of lead exposure, and it's pretty easy to bring it home to your kids, your partner, or just you. It can lead to mental problems, developmental delays, and all sorts of other issues.

Is anyone aware of a suit that has been filed? Have any of you filed a federal rights violation complaint specifically pertaining to that provision?

I'm an idiot and waited. I changed my mind at the last minute and need to pick some up. My FFL is out. Anywhere in Denver metro area not out of stock?

Just that. Here's the language on the list:

"Under the plain language in sections 18-12-101(1)(j), (m), and (l) and 18-12-116(1)(d), C.R.S., frames or receivers for Specified Semiautomatic Firearms and weapons parts kits for Specified Semiautomatic Firearms are within the definition of Specified Semiautomatic Firearms and therefore subject to the requirements in section 18-12-116, C.R.S."

What is a "weapons parts kit"?

It would seem they're separate from receivers... That seems pretty important.

Edit: obviously I know what an AK kit or an AR kit is, or an upper kit is or a trigger kit is. But what is the Department of Revenue legally considering a kit here?

Has anyone installed a grenade sight/gas shutoff valve on their M90? Can it be done? Can I use one from a M70 surplus kit? Can I keep the adjustable gas piece as well?

Has anyone installed a grenade sight/gas shutoff valve on their M90? Can it be done? Can I use one from a M70 surplus kit? Can I keep the adjustable gas piece as well?

I'm looking to install a Grenade Sight shutoff gas block on my M77. It currently has an adjustable gas position regulator that I would like to keep.

Am I correct in assuming I can just install this and retain the gas position regulator, or do I need to do something to the grenade sight gas block?

Anyone know where I can get a .380 receiver? Everyone is out of stock and I need one before the end of July for my kit.

I'm looking to buy a budget PCC to add to my collection, sub $500 (I know, I know, very cheap, I know).

I have a few AKs and gravitated to the NAK9 at first, but I wondered about it being just a poor substitute for an AKV or a KP9 that takes glock mags. None of the 3 of those are recommended for any sort of fast shooting anyway. So I started looking at other options and stumbled upon the GForce Blade 8. It fit my poverty price range, had decent reviews, and looks like a generally decent Scorpion imitation. I know glock mag PCCs are somewhat controversial, but I would care less about that on something like the Blade 8 than I would on an AK pcc.

Has anyone shot both of these or owned both of these? Which have you preferred?

For those who struggle to easily articulate how exactly their rights are currently being violated, one can ask AI to help frame things in a better legal sense. Below is something that I had worked up and edited to address the violations by the magazine ban, overreaches of SB25-003, the FRT/SS ban, and the excise tax on Firearms and Ammunition. It also addresses the cumulative burden that all of these measures together combined create. Please use as you see fit. Not addressed here is the takings violations that these laws will create, so add that in if you so choose.

Proposed Civil Rights Complaint Statement

I respectfully request federal civil-rights review of Colorado’s interlocking firearms restrictions, including SB25-003, Colorado’s magazine ban, and Colorado’s firearms-and-ammunition excise tax scheme. These laws, taken individually and together, burden the right of ordinary, law-abiding Colorado residents to acquire, keep, bear, train with, and maintain constitutionally protected arms and ammunition for lawful purposes, including self-defense.

The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, and that right applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that the government may not prohibit arms that are “in common use” for lawful purposes, and under Bruen and Rahimi, the government bears the burden of showing that a modern firearms restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The relevant question is not whether Colorado believes these laws are useful or whether they might advance public-safety goals. The question is whether Colorado can identify a relevant historical analogue showing a tradition of imposing comparable burdens on ordinary citizens’ access to commonly possessed arms and ammunition.

Colorado’s laws fail that test.

1. SB25-003 burdens the acquisition of protected semiautomatic firearms

SB25-003 imposes special prerequisites on the purchase or transfer of “specified semiautomatic firearms.” Colorado Parks and Wildlife describes the process as requiring, among other things, a name-based background check, government-issued identification, sheriff review, an eligibility card, fees, completion of an approved in-person course, and a required passing score of at least 90%. The eligibility card and course approval are then used by dealers to verify whether the buyer may complete the transaction.

These requirements burden conduct covered by the Second Amendment: the acquisition of firearms that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The right to “keep” arms necessarily includes a right to acquire them; otherwise the constitutional right could be nullified by upstream restrictions on purchase, transfer, and sale. SB25-003 is therefore not merely a neutral safety regulation. It is a licensing-and-permission system applied to the acquisition of a broad category of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.

Colorado may argue that SB25-003 does not ban these firearms outright because a person can still buy them after training, fees, administrative review, and approval. But that objection proves the constitutional problem rather than curing it. A state cannot convert a constitutional right into a privilege conditioned on recurring government permission, state-approved instruction, discretionary local processing, and additional costs unless it can show a historical tradition supporting that burden. Colorado has not identified a Founding-era or Reconstruction-era tradition of requiring ordinary citizens to obtain special eligibility cards, pay administrative fees, complete state-approved training, and pass an exam before acquiring commonly possessed arms.

SB25-003 is constitutionally suspect, as it singles out a class of arms based on features associated with modern semiautomatic firearms, rather than based on whether the purchaser is prohibited, dangerous, or disqualified. The Supreme Court has allowed some regulations disarming individuals who pose a credible threat, but SB25-003 applies to ordinary law-abiding citizens before any individualized finding of dangerousness. That is a materially different burden.

2. SB25-003’s “rapid-fire device” designation improperly labels protected conduct and accessories as “dangerous”

SB25-003 also defines “rapid-fire device” and classifies rapid-fire devices as “dangerous weapons” under Colorado law. The Colorado General Assembly’s own bill summary states that the act “defines ‘rapid-fire device’ and classifies rapid-fire devices as dangerous weapons.”

That designation is constitutionally significant. Colorado is not merely regulating criminal misuse of weapons. It is categorically branding rate-of-fire increase devices as “dangerous,” thereby attaching the stigma and criminal consequences associated with “dangerous weapon” status. The Second Amendment permits historical regulation of “dangerous and unusual” weapons, but the conjunction matters. A state may not evade the “common use” inquiry by legislatively declaring a class of arms or firearm accessories “dangerous” and then treating that label as dispositive.

The stronger constitutional objection is this: Colorado has attempted to transform a constitutional test into a legislative conclusion. If a device or accessory is possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and is not both dangerous and unusual in the historically relevant sense, the State cannot remove it from constitutional protection simply by designating it “dangerous.” The government’s label does not satisfy the historical-tradition burden required by Bruen and Rahimi.

3. Colorado’s magazine ban prohibits arms and components in common use

Colorado’s magazine ban makes it a crime to sell, transfer, or possess a magazine capable of accepting more than fifteen rounds, subject to limited exceptions. The Department of Justice has already filed suit against Colorado over this ban, alleging that magazines above fifteen rounds are standard-capacity magazines for many popular firearms and are owned by law-abiding Americans in very large numbers. The DOJ complaint states that Colorado’s “large capacity” terminology is a misnomer because magazines over fifteen rounds are standard for many popular firearms, including AR-15-style rifles, and that law-abiding Americans own “hundreds of millions” of such magazines.

That is directly relevant to the Second Amendment analysis. Magazines are not peripheral objects unrelated to arms. A detachable magazine is an integral component of many semiautomatic firearms. A law that bans standard magazines materially changes the function, utility, and defensive capacity of commonly possessed firearms. The DOJ’s current position is that Colorado’s magazine ban violates the Second Amendment by banning arms or necessary components in common use for lawful purposes.

Colorado will likely argue that magazine-capacity limits reduce the lethality of mass shootings. That argument is policy-based, not historically grounded. After Bruen, the State may not justify a burden on protected conduct by means-end scrutiny, interest balancing, or generalized public-safety claims. The State must show a relevant historical tradition of comparable restrictions. A modern assertion that a restriction might reduce criminal misuse does not establish that ordinary citizens may be denied standard magazines used for lawful self-defense, training, recreation, and other protected purposes.

4. The firearms-and-ammunition excise tax burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right

Colorado now imposes a 6.5% firearms-and-ammunition excise tax on retail vendors’ net taxable sales of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition sold in Colorado. The Department of Revenue states that the tax took effect April 1, 2025, after HB24-1349 and voter approval of Proposition KK. HB24-1349 states that the tax applies to retail sales of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition, and that the revenue is directed to mental-health services, school safety, gun-violence prevention, and victim services.

Although the tax is formally imposed on vendors, the practical and intended economic effect is to increase the cost of acquiring firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts. Ammunition is not optional to the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms includes the practical ability to acquire ammunition, maintain proficiency, and train safely. A tax specifically imposed on constitutionally protected arms and ammunition therefore burdens the exercise of the right itself.

This is especially constitutionally problematic because the tax is not a general sales tax applied neutrally across all goods. It is a special excise tax targeted specifically at firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition. A state may generally tax commerce, but it may not single out the exercise of a constitutional right for special financial burdens. The First Amendment analogy is instructive: the government could not impose a special tax on newspapers, religious books, or political pamphlets because it dislikes or fears the social consequences of their use. Likewise, Colorado should not be permitted to impose a special tax on arms and ammunition because the State seeks to deter, burden, or extract revenue from the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

The exemptions deepen the constitutional concern. Colorado exempts sales to peace officers, law-enforcement agencies, and active-duty members of the U.S. Armed Forces. That means the tax falls on ordinary civilians exercising a constitutional right, while government-favored users are exempt. The Second Amendment protects “the people,” not only law enforcement or military actors. A tax structure that burdens ordinary citizens while exempting state-preferred users undermines the constitutional premise that self-defense is an individual right.

5. Cumulative-burden theory

Even if Colorado defends each law separately, the cumulative burden matters. SB25-003 restricts acquisition of specified semiautomatic firearms. The magazine ban restricts the standard magazines used in many such firearms. The firearms-and-ammunition excise tax increases the cost of the firearm, the ammunition, and the precursor parts needed to exercise the right. Together, these laws operate as a coordinated burden on the ordinary citizen’s ability to acquire, equip, train with, and maintain arms in common use.

Colorado may argue that each burden is modest. But constitutional rights cannot be burdened by layering “modest” restrictions until the right becomes expensive, delayed, administratively conditioned, and practically inaccessible. The Second Amendment protects an operative right, not a theoretical right available only after payment, permission, training, testing, and acceptance of reduced functionality.

Requested Federal Action

I request that the Department of Justice, including the Civil Rights Division and/or the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado, investigate whether Colorado’s firearms restrictions violate the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Colorado residents. The DOJ has already recognized that Colorado’s magazine ban raises serious Second Amendment concerns and has filed suit challenging that law. I request similar review of SB25-003 and Colorado’s firearms-and-ammunition excise tax scheme, because those laws likewise burden the acquisition and practical exercise of constitutionally protected arms rights.

I further request that the federal government consider declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of these provisions to the extent they burden law-abiding citizens’ acquisition, possession, transfer, training, and use of arms, magazines, ammunition, and related components in common use for lawful purposes.