Didn't see this one coming!

[Mr. AR50]

A friend of mine, who happens to be a Denver firefighter, told me a few months ago about a proposed amendment to local fire codes/ordinances that would limit the amount of ammunition that can be kept in a residence. I more or less dismissed the news at the time. Last week, he called me and said that the ordinance had been amended as follows:

Section 5606
'Small Arms Ammunition and Small Arms Ammunition Components'

Section 3306.4.3 Small Arms Cartridges is retained, renumbered, and amended as follows:

3306.4.3 is now 5606.4.4 Small Arms Cartridges- No more than 10,000 (ten thousand) small arms cartridges shall be stored
in ANY formally Group R(now residential) occupancy.'

I don't have any more info, such as enforcement, and penalties for violators. Short of going door to door, the only way currently that I can see them finding out about someone's ammo supply is by being careless and letting people know what you have. BTW, the 10k number applies to the whole structure in the case of an apartment complex. If it's a 100 unit complex, then the total count between all 100 units is 10k rounds combined, not per individual unit.

[Patriot]

The law hasn't changed. It's always been 10,000 rounds in Denver (a lot of cities have this same law). The only thing that changed was the wording (Group R was changed to residential) and the code number changed.

[Wolfie]

Thats 3 ammo cans of 22LRs.

Lousy law.

[Mr. AR50]

The law hasn't changed. It's always been 10,000 rounds in Denver (a lot of cities have this same law). The only thing that changed was the wording (Group R was changed to residential) and the code number changed.

Thanks for clearing that up Patriot. I've lived here for 50 years, and never even heard of that ordinance. I guess I'll just have to keep ignoring it. 
Colorado, especially Denver, has really pegged the stupid meter as of late. We have some politicians, absolute progressive nut jobs I might add, who are calling for the registration of reloading equipment, and, if you can believe it, making anger management classes mandatory before ammunition can be purchased. I know this crap isn't unique to Colorado, but I can actually remember when this used to be a red state, before the plague of progressive liberalism infested our state.

[Denver1911]

My concern with ignoring the law (which I probably would) is that if there ever is a fire, the imsurance might not pay because I was in violation.  Any thoughts?

[Geeman]

No good reason.  Just more useless regulation.

Just how dangerous is sporting ammunition.  Check out this video!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c

Greg

p.s. - I'm way outside those guidelines.  Just two cases of .22 ammo?  I'd say I've got at least twice that, and I'm not even into the center fire yet.

[redbaron007]

My concern with ignoring the law (which I probably would) is that if there ever is a fire, the imsurance might not pay because I was in violation.  Any thoughts?

The only way the homeowners insurance would not pay is if the law specifically forbid compensation over 10k rounds or however the computation is made; or your insurance policy specifically limited the number of rounds or value. The other possibility is if you exhaust all your personal property limits before calculating the ammo.

[gandog56]

So apparently Denver doesn't believe in "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

[Pinsnscrews]

My concern with ignoring the law (which I probably would) is that if there ever is a fire, the imsurance might not pay because I was in violation.  Any thoughts?

The only way the homeowners insurance would not pay is if the law specifically forbid compensation over 10k rounds or however the computation is made; or your insurance policy specifically limited the number of rounds or value. The other possibility is if you exhaust all your personal property limits before calculating the ammo.

Not entirely accurate. If the fire was not caused by the ammo, there should be no reason for the policy to not pay out. However, since the law limits you to 10K rounds, they may only compensate you for the cost of those 10K rounds when you submit for your claim.

IF the Cause and Origin of the fire is determined to be caused by the excessive amount of ammo, or IF a fireman or other person (most likely candidate is a fireman) is injured due to the ammo (Ie: chambered round gets set off and shoots a fireman), and it is shown that you have over 10K, then the policy could be null and void under the provision of "Knowingly and Intentionally Committing an Illegal Act". It is not generally enforced unless the "Illegal Act" is a definite factor in the cause of the fire, or the "Illegal Act" results in a severe injury or death. But, by the time you get to that situation, you will have already hired an attorney for your defense and will be letting the attorney handle that situation. In other words, the level of Criminal Liability you would be looking at would far out weigh your concerns over what your policy is and is not going to cover. To deny the coverage, it would have to be a very blatant violation of the law, the Insurance Company would have to have very solid footing to show that you "Knowingly and Intentionally" ignored the law.

With the postal service pushing through the Hazmat Labeling change on Powder to being "Explosive", it is possible the insurance companies may start actively instituting capacity limits or requiring proper storage containers/cabinets. I know with the company I was with, I was getting asked quit often by our underwriting department. One of the things I did was have them watch the SAAMI video that was put together in conjunction with the Fire Department to show that gun powder was not explosive and that collateral damage caused by ammo cooking off was not really going to "Exacerbate" the level of damage in a house fire. This line of thinking was caused by another claim due to some jackass shooting a .50bmg cartridge that went through the roof of a woman's home causing about $15,000 in damage. The round did enough damage to one of the internal weight bearing beams that it had to be replaced and not patched. The jackass had parked outside of a private gun range and was shooting at one of the permanent long range gongs on the berm, only the jackass kept missing about 100 yards high. He hit the house about 6 times. Anyways, after seeing the damage photos from the round that did the most damage, someone in underwriting started to wonder what would happen to a house if an ammo can of .50bmg cartridges caught fire. They had visions of the Mythbuster's Canonball, and the rounds shooting through houses for blocks.

[redbaron007]

There are two types of coverages in a homeowners policy: personal property and liability (negligence). Neither are dependent on each other.

Not to be offensive.....but based upon your 'what if' scenario; I don't think you have a full understanding of the coverages and exclusion contained in a homeowners policy. Without having to go into a lengthy dissertation, your 'what if' conclusion is inaccurate.  Some illegal acts may be covered under liability; some intentional acts may also be covered under liability. You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows.

[Raggedyman]

No good reason.  Just more useless regulation.

Just how dangerous is sporting ammunition.  Check out this video!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c

Greg

p.s. - I'm way outside those guidelines.  Just two cases of .22 ammo?  I'd say I've got at least twice that, and I'm not even into the center fire yet.

I'll add these:

[Denver1911]

There are two types of coverages in a homeowners policy: personal property and liability (negligence). Neither are dependent on each other.

Not to be offensive.....but based upon your 'what if' scenario; I don't think you have a full understanding of the coverages and exclusion contained in a homeowners policy. Without having to go into a lengthy dissertation, your 'what if' conclusion is inaccurate.  Some illegal acts may be covered under liability; some intentional acts may also be covered under liability. You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows.

If you were not intending to offend, what was the purpose of the statement, "You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows?"

My concern is raised from the memory I have of my policy stating that, and I paraphrase, "doing illegal stuff may void your policy."  So, my fear would be that my house catches fire because of X and the insurance company says something like, "Your house would not have been much of a loss without all that ammo inside.  Thus, we are not going to pay because it was illegal for you to have that much ammo and the policy says right here that 'doing illegal stuff may void your policy.'"

[DM1906]

......"doing illegal stuff may void your policy."  So, my fear would be that my house catches fire because of X and the insurance company says something like, "Your house would not have been much of a loss without all that ammo inside.  Thus, we are not going to pay because it was illegal for you to have that much ammo and the policy says right here that 'doing illegal stuff may void your policy.'"

Violating a local zone ordinance is not a crime. It isn't the same as blowing up your house as a result of cooking meth in your basement.

[redbaron007]

There are two types of coverages in a homeowners policy: personal property and liability (negligence). Neither are dependent on each other.

Not to be offensive.....but based upon your 'what if' scenario; I don't think you have a full understanding of the coverages and exclusion contained in a homeowners policy. Without having to go into a lengthy dissertation, your 'what if' conclusion is inaccurate.  Some illegal acts may be covered under liability; some intentional acts may also be covered under liability. You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows.

If you were not intending to offend, what was the purpose of the statement, "You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows?"

My concern is raised from the memory I have of my policy stating that, and I paraphrase, "doing illegal stuff may void your policy."  So, my fear would be that my house catches fire because of X and the insurance company says something like, "Your house would not have been much of a loss without all that ammo inside.  Thus, we are not going to pay because it was illegal for you to have that much ammo and the policy says right here that 'doing illegal stuff may void your policy.'"

Comical.....

I would encourage you to read your policy again....if you fine that exclusion, let me know.

[Pinsnscrews]

There are two types of coverages in a homeowners policy: personal property and liability (negligence). Neither are dependent on each other.

Not to be offensive.....but based upon your 'what if' scenario; I don't think you have a full understanding of the coverages and exclusion contained in a homeowners policy. Without having to go into a lengthy dissertation, your 'what if' conclusion is inaccurate.  Some illegal acts may be covered under liability; some intentional acts may also be covered under liability. You may have watched too many CSI and Law & Order shows.

I have seen where the Criminal outcome caused by a Liability situation has given the Insurance Company the green light to deny coverage for First Party Property Damages under the "Illegal Acts" clause of the policy. I never stated the insurance did not cover the Liability damages as the Original Post was only concerned with HIS property, but it was the Liability exposure that gave the Insurance Company the ground work to make the exclusion stick with regards to the Property Coverage of the Home Owner.