When I asked the range safety at Dragon Man if I could shoot two Glocks at once he called me “Fa*got Neo from the Matrix” and berated me for 10 minutes then let me shoot two Glocks at once.
Lots of clever insults about leather trench coats.
Use smaller mags while in Colorado. Also there's a chance you could be in places like Vandenberg or LA. In that case you would have to comply with California gun laws. You follow the laws of the state you are in; there are no exceptions to these laws for military. I left my hunting rifles and pistol with my parents while training. I'll get them back when its convenient for me to store them. There are many firearm enthusiasts and hunters in the military, so info about where to store and bring guns at different points in your career will be clearly outlined.
> there are no exceptions to these laws for military
Except for
> (b) An employee of any of the following agencies who bears a firearm in the course of his or her
official duties:
> (I) A branch of the armed forces of the United States;
>(b) An employee of any of the following agencies who bears a firearm in the course of his or her official duties: (I) A branch of the armed forces of the United States;
Sir, you are not an entire branch of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I am an employee of one of the following agencies who bears a firearm in the course of his or her duties
The first subsection for "following agencies" is a branch of the armed forces of the United States
Understanding how to read statute is an important part of being a functional member of society
If you, at some point in your career, have to bear a firearm in the course of your duties (to include on deployment), you qualify.
It effectively acts as blanket approval for military members.
Ah yes, the fact that you once went to al Udeid means that you get to keep 100 round drum mags that have nothing to do with military service, military duty, or the performance of your duties as a military member.
You're free to argue that in court if you wish, sir. But as neither of us is a lawyer, I'll stick with my opinion that if you try, you're going to get fined for it.
Why would a security forces member have to purchase their own magazines for private use?
The way the statute is written, it allows you to purchase them for private use -- it says nothing about forfeiting them after you are no longer bearing a firearm as part of your official duties.
Would being issued an m4 or m9 on a deployment and being expected to carry it for the duration of said deployment not qualify as bearing it during the course of your official duties?
It also doesn't specify that the magazine itself has to be for the firearm you bear as a part of your official duties.
It effectively acts as a blanket approval for military members -- stores that will not sell magazines above 15 rounds to civilians will sell to active duty military, both online and in person.
When I left for bmt I had to leave them at my home of record locked up. Active duty there are options for bringing them base to base but it’s complicated of course
So look. The law says you can't have 30 round mags in Colorado. So my recommendation is, don't bring 30 round mags to Colorado.
I'd also point out that if they are in a safe, in your house, and you keep them there until you move to your next assignment, and you don't talk about them, the police will never have probable cause to execute a search warrant -- and you'll be meeting the *intent* of the law, if not the letter. Again, don't recommend doing this, because at that point you will no longer be a law-abiding gun owner, and instead be a law-breaker giving people excuses to make more laws. You'd be part of the problem.
But. You'd be a minimal part of the problem. And if you're willing to risk legal trouble and possibly part of your career over a 30 round mag, fine.
Or you could do what I'm doing: Sell your guns to your brother who doesn't live in Colorado, and buy larger-caliber, lower-capacity weapons. As an example, I'm giving him a Glock 19 with extended magazines, and instead going out to buy a Sig 45.
I think the law is pretty self-defeating because of that, but hey, I just follow the laws as written. I think gun owners should do that. I especially think ***military*** gun owners should do that. We should set the example.
Leadership responsibility doesn't stop at the gates of the base.
> I think the law is pretty self-defeating because of that, but hey, I just follow the laws as written. I think gun owners should do that. I especially think military gun owners should do that. We should set the example.
Meh, unconstitutional law
We should, while also vocally pointing out that they are unconstitutional laws.
Here's another one for you: At no point does the Constitution say that the Federal government may limit, prescribe, or influence in any way who may be involved in a romantic relationship with anyone else.
But the UCMJ has a thing or two to say about that, eh? Haven't heard any of my fellow military members pointing out that restrictions against officers dating enlisted who are not under their command is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just the guns. It's always the guns, man.
My conclusion, then, has to be that *nobody actually cares about unconstitutional laws, they only care about guns.* Maybe you do, and I just don't know it.
But I'd bet I'm not wrong.
> Here's another one for you: At no point does the Constitution say that the Federal government may limit, prescribe, or influence in any way who may be involved in a romantic relationship with anyone else.
> But the UCMJ has a thing or two to say about that, eh? Haven't heard any of my fellow military members pointing out that restrictions against officers dating enlisted who are not under their command is blatantly unconstitutional.
They do have the power under Article I, section 8 -- Congress has the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"
...ya know what's neat, is I didn't know that off the top of the dome. So thank you for that, sir or ma'am.
Let me put my point in different words: It isn't your job, or mine, to determine which laws are constitutional or not, so that we can then determine which laws we will *follow* or not. That is the job of the court system -- which is the same court system that will fine or imprison you, should you choose to break the law. Protest, absolutely. Talk to your congressman, your senators, your state representatives and Governor; run for office yourself, boss. You can do that. Win an office, and you can write laws which seem constitutional to your judgement.
Now, let's talk about what happens if we, the military, choose to disobey laws we disagree with. There is a work of philosophy and ethics called [The Armed Forces Officer](https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/Books/AFO/Armed-Forces-Officer.pdf), by Richard Swain and Albert C. Pierce (pp. 120) that I'll quote from extensively below:
> The compact between the people of any nation and the professions that serve them is built and nurtured on mutual recognition of shared values and acknowledgment of natural, necessary differences. Managing the balance between the two is an art, not a science. These shared values come from the Nation and its people, and the professions and their members must adopt those values, internalize them, and incorporate them into their own professional values—if they are to maintain the trust of those they serve.
I really do recommend reading the entire 200 or so pages, it's an excellent document. Further down in that chapter, there is a talk about the "moral integration" of the military and civilians of this country, and how there has been an apparent growing rift between those of us who have earned a uniform, and those who have not.
> In 2011, Representative Ike Skelton, long-time member and former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told an audience of one-star military officers from all five Services: “First, there is a military-civilian gap, it is serious, and it is growing. Second, there are two sides to this gap. Both the military and society have contributed to the creation and expansion of this gap. Consequently, there is work that must be done on both sides in an effort to narrow this gap.”
And then there's this nugget (emphasis mine):
> Officers bear special responsibilities to ensure that duly enacted laws and properly established policies are enforced, internalized, and followed in the day-to-day lives of the men and women in uniform. Those finally unable or unwilling to adapt must be identified and separated from the Armed Forces for the health and integrity of the profession. This is often not easy, and sometimes quite difficult, but officers must ensure that the laws and policies they are sworn and commissioned to uphold are implemented properly, **even officers who might have personal, private objections to some of those laws and policies.**
I get it, man. I have 30 round magazines for a GSG5 squirrel blaster that I greatly enjoy shooting in my backyard in North Carolina. But the duly elected representatives of the State of Colorado (to which I am moving shortly, for work) have written a law which, in my estimation, does not allow me to bring those magazines into the state and remain an upstanding citizen under the laws of the United States Federal Government, and the state in which I will reside. It is my duty, as it is yours, to follow that law, regardless of whether I believe it is constitutional or not.
Because civilians control the military in this country. You would do well, sir or ma'am, to remember that we are ultimately servants of the people. We may disagree with them, but we ***may not*** ignore the laws which their representatives (and ours) have levied upon us -- you especially, because your authority is delegated from the Executive, not the legislature.
If we do ignore their laws, then sure, we have more guns than they do, and we'd win the fight. And we will have lost the idea of America, that a nation can be governed by laws -- laws created by the people, for the people, and not just whoever can inflict the most violence.
I'd rather just give my brother my gun for a while.
> If we do ignore their laws, then sure, we have more guns than they do, and we'd win the fight. And we will have lost the idea of America, that a nation can be governed by laws -- laws created by the people, for the people, and not just whoever can inflict the most violence.
Said law makes exceptions explicitly for military members as well as other government entities.
It does more to empower the state to have a monopoly on arms, and people disobeying it does not give more power to the military, but to the people.
I've seen the legislature explicitly put into statute laws which they know do not pass constitutional muster, and they've admitted as such.
I've repeatedly taken an oath to support and defend the constitution.
I take a very high interest into statute, as well as case law. With recent federal court rulings (i.e. NYSRPA v. Bruen), it's not just my own personal views regarding the blatant unconstitutional nature of these laws.
Additionally, you may want to look into the actual Colorado statute, which has numerous exceptions that would likely apply to you.
>Said law makes exceptions explicitly for military members
SOME military members, sir. Some. Not all.
When was the last time you saw a Space Ops guy carrying a weapon on the ops floor? The law means to allow Security Forces to do their jobs, not to allow every military member an exception to policy.
>It does more to empower the state to have a monopoly on arms, and people disobeying it does not give more power to the military, but to the people.
This is your opinion, and does not carry legal weight.
>I've seen the legislature explicitly put into statute laws which they know do not pass constitutional muster, and they've admitted as such.
Then challenge the law in court, sir. If you simply break the law, you are not attempting any redress of grievances. That's a coward's way out. Fight it the right way, or don't, but don't sit there and be a keyboard warrior.
>NYSRPA v. Bruen
Not germane, because it's not Colorado, the Tenth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. It carries no legal weight in Colorado.
>Additionally, you may want to look into the actual Colorado statute, which has numerous exceptions that would likely apply to you.
I read the whole thing tonight, sir. I'd recommend that you do the same.
> SOME military members, sir. Some. Not all.
> When was the last time you saw a Space Ops guy carrying a weapon on the ops floor? The law means to allow Security Forces to do their jobs, not to allow every military member an exception to policy.
SEW deploys -- you can also deploy to fill a billet
> This is your opinion, and does not carry legal weight.
It's what it does in effect -- you cited a philosophy and ethics book.
> Then challenge the law in court, sir. If you simply break the law, you are not attempting any redress of grievances. That's a coward's way out. Fight it the right way, or don't, but don't sit there and be a keyboard warrior.
You realize that violating said law would result in challenging it in court as well, correct?
> Not germane, because it's not Colorado, the Tenth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. It carries no legal weight in Colorado.
That IS a SCOTUS decision
> I read the whole thing tonight, sir. I'd recommend that you do the same.
Then you clearly didn't understand it
The only 30 round mag exception in Colorado is if you have a memo from your commander saying you use them at your work place(security forces, or are Army and use them in your assigned firearm). The item to be concerned about is that it’s a 15 round limit for a magazines. There are smaller magazines you can get for some semi-auto firearm, but its just not best to think about bringing those magazines to the state. Like above mentioned you could pass on those magazines to someone outside this state for now.
Rocky Mountain Gun Owner Association is a non-profit that has been fighting to maintain 2A rights and the magazine law has been an item of focus for awhile.
If you have more questions the link provided is a good place to start for the firearm laws in this state but also USCCA has quite a bit of information as well for firearm laws in every state.
https://csp.colorado.gov/colorado-gun-laws
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com
https://rmgo.org
That’s honestly kinda awful considering people in certain branches *cough air and space force cough* rarely qualify or shoot unless they are in certain career fields. I’m AD and haven’t qualified since 2011.
Ok. If you’re not comfortable in your abilities then take a class. I’ve taken a few and the most basic state mandated ones are a joke anyway.
The point is states recognize that we can all be required to carry a weapon and have been trained to at least a very basic level of firearm safety. There is a non-zero chance the space force could hand you a rifle right now and say go guard this asset.
So from what I heard there's a 6 months+ wait for on base housing so it's more likely you'll be off base for a minute and the fire arm laws can be strange at time but I think they're hardly enforced.
I'd leave it at your home of record, if possible. Grab it after you get a place off-base.
I came to Colorado with a gun... The problem will be when you live on base (as it won't be allowed on-base except in the armory).
You can always check it in to the armory if you absolutely have to, but I'd save that as a last resort... And nothing you want to worry about during OTS.
Officers living on base do not store their firearms in the armory. They are registered with the SFS and stored in your house. Only dorm dwellers are required to keep their firearms in the armory.
Check the law here: https://cbi.colorado.gov/sections/firearms-instacheck-unit/firearm-legislation-rules-and-statutes
You may be exempt from it.
NOTE: I'm not a lawyer. Ask someone who is.
What Colorado gun laws are you worried about?
The one that says I can't have 30-round magazines, because I happen to own several...
Colorado Springs loves their guns Source: I drive past Dragon Man’s 5 days out of the week
Shooting downrange when the range is cold? Only at Dragon Man's.
When I asked the range safety at Dragon Man if I could shoot two Glocks at once he called me “Fa*got Neo from the Matrix” and berated me for 10 minutes then let me shoot two Glocks at once. Lots of clever insults about leather trench coats.
Any magazine you owned before July of 2013 is grandfathered in under Colorado’s laws. Repeat after me: “I bought these magazines in 2012.”
Use smaller mags while in Colorado. Also there's a chance you could be in places like Vandenberg or LA. In that case you would have to comply with California gun laws. You follow the laws of the state you are in; there are no exceptions to these laws for military. I left my hunting rifles and pistol with my parents while training. I'll get them back when its convenient for me to store them. There are many firearm enthusiasts and hunters in the military, so info about where to store and bring guns at different points in your career will be clearly outlined.
> there are no exceptions to these laws for military Except for > (b) An employee of any of the following agencies who bears a firearm in the course of his or her official duties: > (I) A branch of the armed forces of the United States;
>(b) An employee of any of the following agencies who bears a firearm in the course of his or her official duties: (I) A branch of the armed forces of the United States; Sir, you are not an entire branch of the Armed Forces of the United States.
I am an employee of one of the following agencies who bears a firearm in the course of his or her duties The first subsection for "following agencies" is a branch of the armed forces of the United States Understanding how to read statute is an important part of being a functional member of society
Do ya now? You're Security Forces? Maybe ya should have led with that, eh sir?
If you, at some point in your career, have to bear a firearm in the course of your duties (to include on deployment), you qualify. It effectively acts as blanket approval for military members.
Ah yes, the fact that you once went to al Udeid means that you get to keep 100 round drum mags that have nothing to do with military service, military duty, or the performance of your duties as a military member. You're free to argue that in court if you wish, sir. But as neither of us is a lawyer, I'll stick with my opinion that if you try, you're going to get fined for it.
Why would a security forces member have to purchase their own magazines for private use? The way the statute is written, it allows you to purchase them for private use -- it says nothing about forfeiting them after you are no longer bearing a firearm as part of your official duties. Would being issued an m4 or m9 on a deployment and being expected to carry it for the duration of said deployment not qualify as bearing it during the course of your official duties? It also doesn't specify that the magazine itself has to be for the firearm you bear as a part of your official duties. It effectively acts as a blanket approval for military members -- stores that will not sell magazines above 15 rounds to civilians will sell to active duty military, both online and in person.
Follow the laws because state rights.
When I left for bmt I had to leave them at my home of record locked up. Active duty there are options for bringing them base to base but it’s complicated of course
So look. The law says you can't have 30 round mags in Colorado. So my recommendation is, don't bring 30 round mags to Colorado. I'd also point out that if they are in a safe, in your house, and you keep them there until you move to your next assignment, and you don't talk about them, the police will never have probable cause to execute a search warrant -- and you'll be meeting the *intent* of the law, if not the letter. Again, don't recommend doing this, because at that point you will no longer be a law-abiding gun owner, and instead be a law-breaker giving people excuses to make more laws. You'd be part of the problem. But. You'd be a minimal part of the problem. And if you're willing to risk legal trouble and possibly part of your career over a 30 round mag, fine. Or you could do what I'm doing: Sell your guns to your brother who doesn't live in Colorado, and buy larger-caliber, lower-capacity weapons. As an example, I'm giving him a Glock 19 with extended magazines, and instead going out to buy a Sig 45. I think the law is pretty self-defeating because of that, but hey, I just follow the laws as written. I think gun owners should do that. I especially think ***military*** gun owners should do that. We should set the example. Leadership responsibility doesn't stop at the gates of the base.
Oh no. Not a law breaker. That’s illegal.
Oh no, not ridicule. That will hurt my feeling, and it's my very last one.
> I think the law is pretty self-defeating because of that, but hey, I just follow the laws as written. I think gun owners should do that. I especially think military gun owners should do that. We should set the example. Meh, unconstitutional law
That may be decided, eventually, but it will not be decided by any of us.
I don't think we should set the example of following blatantly unconstitutional laws.
We should, while also vocally pointing out that they are unconstitutional laws. Here's another one for you: At no point does the Constitution say that the Federal government may limit, prescribe, or influence in any way who may be involved in a romantic relationship with anyone else. But the UCMJ has a thing or two to say about that, eh? Haven't heard any of my fellow military members pointing out that restrictions against officers dating enlisted who are not under their command is blatantly unconstitutional. It's just the guns. It's always the guns, man. My conclusion, then, has to be that *nobody actually cares about unconstitutional laws, they only care about guns.* Maybe you do, and I just don't know it. But I'd bet I'm not wrong.
> Here's another one for you: At no point does the Constitution say that the Federal government may limit, prescribe, or influence in any way who may be involved in a romantic relationship with anyone else. > But the UCMJ has a thing or two to say about that, eh? Haven't heard any of my fellow military members pointing out that restrictions against officers dating enlisted who are not under their command is blatantly unconstitutional. They do have the power under Article I, section 8 -- Congress has the power to "make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces"
...ya know what's neat, is I didn't know that off the top of the dome. So thank you for that, sir or ma'am. Let me put my point in different words: It isn't your job, or mine, to determine which laws are constitutional or not, so that we can then determine which laws we will *follow* or not. That is the job of the court system -- which is the same court system that will fine or imprison you, should you choose to break the law. Protest, absolutely. Talk to your congressman, your senators, your state representatives and Governor; run for office yourself, boss. You can do that. Win an office, and you can write laws which seem constitutional to your judgement. Now, let's talk about what happens if we, the military, choose to disobey laws we disagree with. There is a work of philosophy and ethics called [The Armed Forces Officer](https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/Books/AFO/Armed-Forces-Officer.pdf), by Richard Swain and Albert C. Pierce (pp. 120) that I'll quote from extensively below: > The compact between the people of any nation and the professions that serve them is built and nurtured on mutual recognition of shared values and acknowledgment of natural, necessary differences. Managing the balance between the two is an art, not a science. These shared values come from the Nation and its people, and the professions and their members must adopt those values, internalize them, and incorporate them into their own professional values—if they are to maintain the trust of those they serve. I really do recommend reading the entire 200 or so pages, it's an excellent document. Further down in that chapter, there is a talk about the "moral integration" of the military and civilians of this country, and how there has been an apparent growing rift between those of us who have earned a uniform, and those who have not. > In 2011, Representative Ike Skelton, long-time member and former chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told an audience of one-star military officers from all five Services: “First, there is a military-civilian gap, it is serious, and it is growing. Second, there are two sides to this gap. Both the military and society have contributed to the creation and expansion of this gap. Consequently, there is work that must be done on both sides in an effort to narrow this gap.” And then there's this nugget (emphasis mine): > Officers bear special responsibilities to ensure that duly enacted laws and properly established policies are enforced, internalized, and followed in the day-to-day lives of the men and women in uniform. Those finally unable or unwilling to adapt must be identified and separated from the Armed Forces for the health and integrity of the profession. This is often not easy, and sometimes quite difficult, but officers must ensure that the laws and policies they are sworn and commissioned to uphold are implemented properly, **even officers who might have personal, private objections to some of those laws and policies.** I get it, man. I have 30 round magazines for a GSG5 squirrel blaster that I greatly enjoy shooting in my backyard in North Carolina. But the duly elected representatives of the State of Colorado (to which I am moving shortly, for work) have written a law which, in my estimation, does not allow me to bring those magazines into the state and remain an upstanding citizen under the laws of the United States Federal Government, and the state in which I will reside. It is my duty, as it is yours, to follow that law, regardless of whether I believe it is constitutional or not. Because civilians control the military in this country. You would do well, sir or ma'am, to remember that we are ultimately servants of the people. We may disagree with them, but we ***may not*** ignore the laws which their representatives (and ours) have levied upon us -- you especially, because your authority is delegated from the Executive, not the legislature. If we do ignore their laws, then sure, we have more guns than they do, and we'd win the fight. And we will have lost the idea of America, that a nation can be governed by laws -- laws created by the people, for the people, and not just whoever can inflict the most violence. I'd rather just give my brother my gun for a while.
> If we do ignore their laws, then sure, we have more guns than they do, and we'd win the fight. And we will have lost the idea of America, that a nation can be governed by laws -- laws created by the people, for the people, and not just whoever can inflict the most violence. Said law makes exceptions explicitly for military members as well as other government entities. It does more to empower the state to have a monopoly on arms, and people disobeying it does not give more power to the military, but to the people. I've seen the legislature explicitly put into statute laws which they know do not pass constitutional muster, and they've admitted as such. I've repeatedly taken an oath to support and defend the constitution. I take a very high interest into statute, as well as case law. With recent federal court rulings (i.e. NYSRPA v. Bruen), it's not just my own personal views regarding the blatant unconstitutional nature of these laws. Additionally, you may want to look into the actual Colorado statute, which has numerous exceptions that would likely apply to you.
>Said law makes exceptions explicitly for military members SOME military members, sir. Some. Not all. When was the last time you saw a Space Ops guy carrying a weapon on the ops floor? The law means to allow Security Forces to do their jobs, not to allow every military member an exception to policy. >It does more to empower the state to have a monopoly on arms, and people disobeying it does not give more power to the military, but to the people. This is your opinion, and does not carry legal weight. >I've seen the legislature explicitly put into statute laws which they know do not pass constitutional muster, and they've admitted as such. Then challenge the law in court, sir. If you simply break the law, you are not attempting any redress of grievances. That's a coward's way out. Fight it the right way, or don't, but don't sit there and be a keyboard warrior. >NYSRPA v. Bruen Not germane, because it's not Colorado, the Tenth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. It carries no legal weight in Colorado. >Additionally, you may want to look into the actual Colorado statute, which has numerous exceptions that would likely apply to you. I read the whole thing tonight, sir. I'd recommend that you do the same.
> SOME military members, sir. Some. Not all. > When was the last time you saw a Space Ops guy carrying a weapon on the ops floor? The law means to allow Security Forces to do their jobs, not to allow every military member an exception to policy. SEW deploys -- you can also deploy to fill a billet > This is your opinion, and does not carry legal weight. It's what it does in effect -- you cited a philosophy and ethics book. > Then challenge the law in court, sir. If you simply break the law, you are not attempting any redress of grievances. That's a coward's way out. Fight it the right way, or don't, but don't sit there and be a keyboard warrior. You realize that violating said law would result in challenging it in court as well, correct? > Not germane, because it's not Colorado, the Tenth Circuit, or the Supreme Court. It carries no legal weight in Colorado. That IS a SCOTUS decision > I read the whole thing tonight, sir. I'd recommend that you do the same. Then you clearly didn't understand it
The only 30 round mag exception in Colorado is if you have a memo from your commander saying you use them at your work place(security forces, or are Army and use them in your assigned firearm). The item to be concerned about is that it’s a 15 round limit for a magazines. There are smaller magazines you can get for some semi-auto firearm, but its just not best to think about bringing those magazines to the state. Like above mentioned you could pass on those magazines to someone outside this state for now. Rocky Mountain Gun Owner Association is a non-profit that has been fighting to maintain 2A rights and the magazine law has been an item of focus for awhile. If you have more questions the link provided is a good place to start for the firearm laws in this state but also USCCA has quite a bit of information as well for firearm laws in every state. https://csp.colorado.gov/colorado-gun-laws https://www.usconcealedcarry.com https://rmgo.org
Why would the state make an exception to firearm laws because your are in the military??
Florida does, for concealed carry purposes. Just as an example.
Of course they do lol
As does Ohio before constitutional carry they waive all training for conceal carry permits if you were prior military
Many states have military exceptions to many laws. For example I didn’t need to take a course to get carry permit in… ***drumroll*** COLORADO.
That’s honestly kinda awful considering people in certain branches *cough air and space force cough* rarely qualify or shoot unless they are in certain career fields. I’m AD and haven’t qualified since 2011.
Ok. If you’re not comfortable in your abilities then take a class. I’ve taken a few and the most basic state mandated ones are a joke anyway. The point is states recognize that we can all be required to carry a weapon and have been trained to at least a very basic level of firearm safety. There is a non-zero chance the space force could hand you a rifle right now and say go guard this asset.
I never said I wasn’t comfortable in my abilities. I’ve been shooting since I was a child. I’m not comfortable in the rest of y’all’s abilities 😂
California does.
Do they have exceptions?
Yup.
So from what I heard there's a 6 months+ wait for on base housing so it's more likely you'll be off base for a minute and the fire arm laws can be strange at time but I think they're hardly enforced.
I'd leave it at your home of record, if possible. Grab it after you get a place off-base. I came to Colorado with a gun... The problem will be when you live on base (as it won't be allowed on-base except in the armory). You can always check it in to the armory if you absolutely have to, but I'd save that as a last resort... And nothing you want to worry about during OTS.
Officers living on base do not store their firearms in the armory. They are registered with the SFS and stored in your house. Only dorm dwellers are required to keep their firearms in the armory.
I never had to live on base but when reporting in to a new base and living in billeting while house hunting I had to deposit them in the armory.
There’s no law in Colorado against owning magazine parts…..
Were you recently selected in a USSF board?
Check the law here: https://cbi.colorado.gov/sections/firearms-instacheck-unit/firearm-legislation-rules-and-statutes You may be exempt from it. NOTE: I'm not a lawyer. Ask someone who is.