Post should have pointed out that a Magpul magazine could have been used by Newtown killer

(A potentially huge question – promoted by Colorado Pols)

UPDATE: KOA's Mike Rosen had Duane Liptak, director of Magpul Dynamics, on the air this morning, and so I called in and asked Liptak how he'd feel if a Magpul 30-round magazine were used at the Sandy Hook massacre. Here's how my converstation went. Notet that Liptak answered my question at the end, saying that I should address the "criminal, not the instrument."

Jason: You make the most popular 30-round magazine, I think, in the country.

Liptak: We are definitely an industry leader in the standard-capacity magazines in common use.

Jason: Right, so what that means, is there's a significant likelihood that your magazine was used at Sandy Hook, right? And I'm wondering how you feel about that?

Rosen: What a stupid question!

Jason: It's fair enough!

Rosen: Of course this is a flaming lefty, Jason Salzman.What a moron you are, Jason–

Rosen then hung up on me, ending the conversation. Rosen and Liptak, whose company says it will leave Colorado if the bill limiting the size of magazines becomes law, continued.

Rosen: …What a terrible innuendo.

Liptak: Absolutely.

Rosen: So he's trying to relate you to Sandy Hook. This is the way the left operates. We're having a rational discussion here, talking about some of the specifics, the elements, of the bill. And he wants to make that kind of contention. Shame on you, Jason Salzman.

Liptak: Address the individual behavior and the criminal, not the instrument.


In a March 8 article about Colorado legislation limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines for guns, The Denver Post's Kurtis Lee reported the comment from Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman that magazines from Magpul Industries, a Colorado ammunition manufacturer, were used to kill Osama Bin Laden.

Magpul has threatened to leave Colorado if state lawmakers prohibit the sale of magazines with more than 15 rounds, and Colorado is on the verge of enacting this type of ban, along with a set of other gun-safety laws.

Lee reported:

Sen. Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs, offered testimony in the floor debate that "reveals members of SEAL Team 6 used Magpul magazines" in the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Lee should have pointed out that large-capacity magazines, like those manufactured by Magpul Industries, are also used in assault weapons like the AR-15, which was the primary gun used in the Newtown Connecticut massacre.

Press reports state that Newtown killer Adam Lanza used 30-round magazines, and check of Connecticut gun shops showed that Magpul brand 30-round magazines are available–though Lanza's magazines, whether a Magpul or some other brand, could have been purchased from numerous out-of-state sources as well.

Magpul's PMAG is the most popular 30-round magazine in the U.S., gun expert Mark Walters told NBC News.

I called the Connecticut State Police to find out if evidence shows that Lanza used a Magpul magazine.

"We can’t disclose any of the bits and pieces of the investigation until it’s completed," said Lt. J. Paul Vance, spokesman for the Connecticut State Police.

Asked if the brand name of the magazine is known, Vance said:

"We seized the high-capacity magazines, and we do know the brand. We do have them in our possession."

Vance said that when his office's final report on the Newtown investigation is released, the brands of the magazines used will be made public. A release date hasn't been set.

Back in December, Vance told CNN details about the primary weapon used in the Newtown attack, including its brand:

The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gun makers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode.

Police didn't offer details about the specific model of the rifle Lanza used. A typical Bushmaster rifle, such as the M4 model, comes with a 30-round magazine but can use magazines of various capacities from five to 40 rounds. An M4 weighs about 6 ½ pounds and retails for about $1,300.

CNN reported that Bushmaster claims to be the top supplier of AR-15s in the U.S.

follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog


45 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. And the beauty of it is, Magpul magazines could still be purchased by the military for use in hunting down and killing terrorists like OBL.

    The manufacturers of DDT and leaded gasoline were pissed when those chemicals were outlawed, too. Every once in a while, public safety outweighs a company's desire to make something – even something that the public might want.

    • BlueCat says:

      Exactly.  What does a militay use of large capacity magazines have to do with the discusion? Like our righties here, righitie pols seem to have a terrible time arguing actually issues on their actual merits. It's either create a straw dog to argue against in place of anything actually posed by anybody or change the subject to something irrelevant and hope nobody notices.

      Guess that's what happens when you've got nothing and the completely phony  argument that the Constitution doesn't allow any regulation of firearms is certainly nothing as we've been doing it and the Supreme Court has been OK with it all along.

      Guess that's why none of them here will directly answer my questions about why rightie pols aren't saying anything, much less waxing hysterical over, so many of the longstanding regulations already in place.

      So, one more time,  I ask them why they are apparently fine with not being able to board a flight with an AK47 or attend a Broncos game wirh with a shoulder mounted rocket launcher?  Why is that OK wth them and not an unconstitutional  infringement of their 2nd amendment rights while limiting the number of rounds a civilian can have in a single magazine is an assualt on the same supposedly absolute 2nd amnendment rights. 

      Once again, I won't hold my breath for a direct answer. I expect either nada or another non-reponse response.

  2. rathmone says:

    A few factoids, presented without comment:

    The MagPul PMAG is so popular, Electronic Arts partnered w/ MagPul to use its products in their "Medal of Honor Warfighter" first-person shooter video game

     Real and Virtual Firearms Nurture a Marketing Link, NY Times, 12/24/12

    "Makers of firearms and related gear have come to see video games as a way to promote their brands to millions of potential customers, marketing experts said. Magpul and Electronic Arts made a video posted on YouTube about their partnership…The gunman in the Connecticut killings, Adam Lanza, used a semiautomatic rifle made by Bushmaster…"

    That video is now private, but I found this one that still exists. Seems likely to be the same one, but who knows. Also, this image of a PMAG is from the Warfighter website:


    That is all.

  3. JeffcoBlue says:

    Looks like you got uncomfortably close to home, Jason. Nice work!

  4. JeffcoBlue says:

    Address the individual behavior and the criminal, not the instrument.

    Is that what Magpul said when they were advertising PMAGs as the "new weapon of democracy?" Bullshit…

  5. Koch says:

    A rather bizarre point, Who care's if Magpul could have been used in that crime?   Do you care if it was a Ford or Chevy used the break the speed limit?

    And more to the point would you grill CEO of Ford if a drunk driver got behind the wheel and killed school children?  It is the individual not the tool.

    And to the people that want to compare DDT and leaded gas as some kind of equilivent to removing "rights".  There is a no admendant expressely protecting that "right".

    • Gray in Mountains says:

      and who cares if Magpul was used to kill OBL or if they are widely in use in Iraq, Afghanistan and other military theatres?

      But, LaPierre raised the issue, as others have, of video games. We know Lanza liked video games, Maybe a video game featuring Magpul products played a part? 😉 Magpul is not responsible for Sandy Hook. Lanza's mother was irresponsible to have deadly weapons in the house. We, the citizenry of the USA, are irresponsible to have assault weapons available anywhere to anyone

      s m

    • ArapaGOP says:

      Excellent points. Democrats are determined to criminalize things, not crimes. It is the attitude of the oppressor.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        Right, because Democrats are the first people to criminalize 'things' not 'crimes.'  Good lord are you really that stupid? 

      • BlueCat says:

        Oh shut up.  You still haven't given me an answer to my question. You just keep popping off new bits of  nonsense.  Show me evidence that Dems are for letting criminals off the hook.  But first, answer the question I've asked you numerous times and that you've refused to answer.

        In case you've forgotten,  your arguments against any regulations being proposed today seem to rest heavily on your claim that the right to bear arms is so absolute that any regulations affecting that right are an assault on liberty and a violation of the constitution, not a position that has ever been taken by any Supreme Court.

        Clearly the courts have never taken the view that the right to bear arms must be interpreted to mean any arms, anywhere, under any circumstances. That's why we've long had many regulations concerning the bearing of arms that have passed muster with the Supreme Court.   If you do interpret the right to be 100% absolute (unlike any of our other constitutional rights)  then you should be just as outraged over all the long standing regulations as you are over the proposed ones.

        So tell me once and for all: Why is no AK47 in your carry on OK with you but any limit to magazine capacity an attack on all that's sacred?

        • Koch says:

          @BlueCat you are correct we have the ability to regulate but we have established rights, would you say that it is ok for the government to regulate which books you have assess too?   Not to say government isn’t limiting free speech, they now have “free speech zones” for you to protest at, that they will put three blocks or even a mile away from the event.   So be careful when you say you don’t want a right to be interpreted as absolute, because the next one they take might be something you care about and you won’t have a means of protecting it. 


          • BlueCat says:

            I'm saying what I said. Can you read? I am saying  that the Supreme Court has long upheld rehulations on weapons. I'm not saying that means that all regulations would pass muster.  I am saying that the argument that all firearms regulation violates our rights is devoid of merit as demonstrated by long established precedent. Period.  But I can certainly see why you'd rather change the subject than address that simple truth directly.

          • Idiot Flatent says:

            Damn straight!

            Limiting freedom in alleged defense of the "common good" is socialism. The bill of rights is inviolable!  Kiddy porn and dirty bomb books for everyone!

    • DaftPunk says:

      Well parsed conservative shill ("no admendant(sic) expressely protecting".)

      Of course your namesake corporate industrialist brothers have funded think tanks advocating for the right to pollute, and would raise a hue and cry over any environmental regulation restricting that "right" as a taking.

      Here's a clue for you, which as a conservative you should already be familiar with, read the tenth amendment.

      • Koch says:

        Yes and have you read the second amendment of Colorado State Constitution.  If these law makers want to regulate, maybe they should start with amending state constituion first.

        • roccoprahn says:

          And was your ass in the military?

          Remember the Stolen Valor Act before answering.

          Read the 2nd Amendment again, missy.

          "Well regulated Militia"………….that's what the fire arm's for, you freeloader.

          • Koch says:

            The 2nd amendment has been interpreted as individuals right to bear arms, read Columbia v. Heller.  

            As to military service I am not sure the relevance but yes, I severed in the Persian Gulf, sorry no medals of valor.

        • DaftPunk says:

          I don't know whay you're dragging gay rights into this debate.

          Colorado amendment 2 was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in Romer v. Evans.

          As for the US 2nd amendment, let's read what Justice Scalia has to say on behalf of the SCOTUS:

          Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


    • DaftPunk says:

      Below aimed at you.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      I half agree with you. You're absolutely correct that we would not hold a car company for their car being driven by a drunk driver.

      On the flip side, these magazines are purchased for only two reasons (by civilians). Shooting watermellons and mass murder.

      Magpul is more like a company that sells drug  paraphernalia. They themselves are not breaking the law, but they are selling a product aimed at those that do.

      • Jason Salzman says:

        We regulate cars in various ways, and the perspective of the manufacturer on the regulations is interesting–and his or her feelings when something goes wrong or right.

        These guns are used by Seals and murderers. Magpul put itself out there, and it can talk about both.

      • PERA hopeful says:

        I have a terrible cold.  I would really like to take some Sudafed to reduce the congestion I am experiencing.  I have to go to the pharmacy and sign a register and show ID to get a freakin' decongestant, and even then I can only buy so many at a time.  I have to do this because some people purchase Sudafed for a nefarious purpose (making meth).  

        Some people buy guns and high-capacity magazines for a nefarious purpose, so all purchasers have to jump through some hoops and some quantities are limited  JUST LIKE MY GODDAMN SUDAFED.

        Pardon the caps but I'm out of Sudafed….

      • Koch says:

        Why the magazine?  Why not the gun or more importantly the ammunition?  A magazine has never killed anyone. That would be like blaming the gas tank of the car holding 10 gallons instead of 5 gallons.  You could then say, no one would have died if the driver stopped to refill.  Ridiculous example, yes, just as ridiculous as blaming the magazine as the problem.

        I will leave you with this.

        Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. –Ben Franklin

        • ajb says:

          Why the magazine? Why not?

          Large capacity magazines allow people (soldiers and criminals) to kill more people more quickly. That's it. 

          We prohibit the use of leaded gasoline because it reduces injury and saves lives. Limiting the size of gun magazines will do the same thing. Yet you're still allowed to own the gun and use it for its intended legal purposes without any significant restriction. 

          • Koch says:

            Nice try but Leaded gas is not a protected right.

            • ajb says:

              Gosh, you're so right. That's why submachine guns and RPGs are legal. Oh wait…

              Even our current conservative SCOTUS recognizes and allows reasonable regulation of firearms. 

              Try again.

              • Koch says:

                The problem is whom makes the determination of reasonable. Not one single Colorado sheriff was asked for  input on any of these bills.  But we are supposed to believe these politicians know best?  Where are the stats and science to justifiy this.  Oh right, there are none.  If we to using fact, hammers would be banned before semi-auto rifles.

                • BlueCat says:

                  It's up to the courts to determine that.  Not the Sheriffs.  On the other hand, most police organizations would like even more control, such as a return of the ban on types of semi-automatic weapons that was in place for 10 years without ever getting shot down (no pun intended) by the Supremes.

                  One more time, just as with other rights, such as the right to free speech which is subject to various restrictions, no Supreme Court of any compostion has ever ruled that the right to bear arms must be interpreted to mean the right to bear any and all arms, any and all places, under any and all circumstances.

                  So the question of whether or not the constitution allows for the right to bear arms to be subject to regulation is one which is long settled with the answer being "yes".

                  Maybe if opponents of specific measures would argue about whether or not those measures represent reasonable levels regulation they would be taken seriously and a constructive debate could take place. 

                  Instead they have chosen to forfeit the right to be taken seriously by making the hysterical and blatantly false and accusatory claim that any regulation is an unlawful, unconstitutional assault on our rights and liberty, a claim that can easily be refuted by anyone with a few minutes and access to the internet.

                  Here n Colorado, hysteria and lies lost. Maybe the  gun lobby should try something else.

                  • Koch says:

                    While the 1994 ban was not overturned it was undermined by Printz v. United StatesIn essence said the Federal government had no authority to enforce the law.  Now, this will be a state law hard to say how it would be interpreted.  Not that familiar with how Colorado courts lean. 

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Then argue that in the case of that specific ban but you can't argue that all regulation is unconstitutional. The Supremes have long allowed various regulations. That's my point.  That's settled.

                • Curmudgeon says:

                  If we are concealing facts, we don't mention handguns before hammers, now do we?  

                  • Koch says:

                    Concealing nothing, the majority of the national discussion has been on the evil's of the "assault” rifle and the plastic murder boxes attached to them.  Hence why I compared those stats.  But I am sure the discourse will be moving on to handguns soon enough.

                    • Gray in Mountains says:

                      In my view next needs to be registration of all guns

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Once again you retreat to something that you "are sure" will happen as opposed to what is being proposed and debated in the here and now. 

                      Whether it's guns jamming, general  random outbursts about freedom, or a jump to what you claim, without a scrap of supporting evidence, is "sure" to happen with handguns, anything is better than debating the actual legislation on its own merits or lack thereof, something you clearly can't do.

                      What will your next attempt at distraction from the povery of your arguments be?   Never mind. I really don't care.

  6. dwyer says:


    This month KOA is solicting comments for its reapplication.  It wants to demonstrate that it is operating in the "community interest."  I urge you to write a comment for that application pointing out that when you posted a legitimate question, he hung up on you and would not let you continue.  He justified that on the basic of what it called your political afilitation.  There are no so-called "progressive" or "democratic" hosts on KOA.  I believe that kind of censorship based on a person's preceived political beliefs is not in the community interest.

  7. dwyer says:

    "He" being Rosen….I really find myself in agreement with BC and others that this new format could really stand improvement. I need a preview of my comments so I can pick up mistakes.  For the record, col pols, I have the beginning stages of mag degeneration and I find I miss stuff.  Beginning able to preview what be a big help to those of us with vision problems.

    On that note, thank god, that you do not have those crazy collection of strange letters that have to be copied, endlessly, as a way to filter out robots or spam….

  8. dwyer says:

    I am not even going to rewrite that confusing sentence in the middle of the comment.  I just offer  my apologies for the mess.

    It proves my point..

  9. Koch says:

    If you honestly want to understand why with this magazine bans is ridiculous, read and watch this.

    • BlueCat says:

      A nine year old girl could be alive and a little older today if the ban had been in place and the bystanders who tackled the shooter when he had to reload after 33 rounds had had a chance to stop him sooner. She was killed with the 33rd. More and sooner chances for intervention are better.  Nothing "ridiculous" about that.

      • Koch says:

        As someone with experence, the high capacity of a magazine the higher the likely hood of a jam.  Just saying.

        • roccoprahn says:

          In an earlier post, you said you served, Desert Storm.

          No United States Military veteran, especially a combat veteran would have posted what I'm responding to.

          You're saying a viable defense of the usage of an assault weapon with a high cap mag is that it might jam, so maybe it's not that dangerous?

          Are you kidding me?

          I repeat, NO United States Military Combat Veteran would utter that utter crap, because they would have seen the damage rounds do to human flesh. 6 year old victims, multiple entry/exit wounds, half the skull missing.

          You've seen too many shoot 'em up movies, kid.

          Get my grift?

          Naw, you didn't serve. Again, check out The Stolen Valor Act.

          Just sayin'…………………………..

        • BlueCat says:

          Your mind is a really confusing place.  So now you're switching to an argument that because guns can jam, reducing capacity will take care of itself, granted on a sporadic and unpredictable basis?   In the case I cited,  it made it through to number 33 without jamming.  Guess that little girl lost the Russian Roulette game you seem to be promoting as a dandy alternative to banning high capacity magazines.   But congrats. You win the most disgusting comment on a thread prize.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.