wtf Colorado?

[bofa]

Nothing has passed yet and I doubt all 4 bills will pass.

With regards to home protection the best and what I keep in the house is a shotgun,you don't need to be deadly accurate and you won't be pumping bullets through your walls into your neighbor's house. Also if you have large capacity clips you can still legally retain them but new ones won't be available for sale anymore in the state if the bill passes. I also doubt out-of-staters will have to worry about any issues if they are carrying high a high capacity magazine if it's legal in their own state.

While I would like to agree, it's doubts like that that allowed the last AWB to get passed. Keep in mind that the CO Senate has a democratic majority and I believe the Gov is demo as well. At this point NOT getting it passed is an uphill battle all the way, imo.

 

[JayG]

Gun control.........

You control yours and I'll control mine....gun control!

Number one cause of accidental death in America? Prescription drug overdose! Guess we should outlaw them! :hiding:

 

[H2O_Doc]

You control yours and I'll control mine....gun control!

Number one cause of accidental death in America? Prescription drug overdose! Guess we should outlaw them! :hiding:

Good point. Prescription drugs should be deregulated and why on earth should people be required to have drivers licenses and car registrations?

Registration always leads to confiscation.

 

[Singtoe]

I love when people mention our "forefathers" and think they know what they intended back in the 1800's. Comical.

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

 

[04rnr]

These proposals do not violate the 2nd Amendment in any way folks, get over it.

when they ban cars, that go over 65MPH, you get over it.


what part of "Infringe" dont you get ?

 

[04rnr]

 

[bofa]

Good point. Prescription drugs should be deregulated and why on earth should people be required to have drivers licenses and car registrations?

Registration always leads to confiscation.

Try driving without a license or registration and see how long until it is confiscated. :wink2:

 

[H2O_Doc]

As I've said before, I'm not advocating more gun control here, but the arguments I hear are puzzling. It seems some are arguing that there should be little to no restrictions on the kind of guns that people can own because guns protect us from tyranny. But guns are not really sufficient to protect us from a modern military wielded by a despot, are they? In the age of drones, smart bombs, precision guided missiles, and all sorts of military technology, how much difference does it make that someone only has a hunting rifle versus an assault style rifle? How much difference does a 10 round capacity versus a 30 round capacity make against a smart bomb? Again, I'm not arguing for more laws, but I do think much of the dialog is disingenuous and fanning the fears of government tyranny is mostly a propaganda tool; not exclusively, but mostly. Now, if the argument is that there can be no limitation on gun ownership whatsoever under the 2nd amendment, that simply ignores hundreds of years of history and legal interpretation.

I really wonder to what extent are positions formulated first and then some sort of argument concocted afterwards based on superficial analysis and a convenient reading of law or history. People seem more than happy to wave the flag and constitution when they perceive it useful to their own cause of interest (how patriotic we can become), but how many of us are able to defend unpopular and personally disagreeable positions that are clearly deserving of protection under the constitution?

It seems to me that this instance (Colorado), is at least rightly being proposed at the State level (versus federal) and it seems like some of what is being proposed is well within constitutional limits (our nation has a long history of gun control, even in the wild, wild west). I might not agree with the particular proposal, but it isn't a federal overreach (or reach around).

 

[JohnnyT]

Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. -George Washington

Hahahaha..... Just think of the millions of cops this would put out of work that would now have to become shoe makers, gunsmiths, blacksmiths, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers.

Hysterical! I love this thread!

Pilgrims! Hahahaha...

 

[bofa]

As I've said before, I'm not advocating more gun control here, but the arguments I hear are puzzling. It seems some are arguing that there should be little to no restrictions on the kind of guns that people can own because guns protect us from tyranny. But guns are not really sufficient to protect us from a modern military wielded by a despot, are they? In the age of drones, smart bombs, precision guided missiles, and all sorts of military technology, how much difference does it make that someone only has a hunting rifle versus an assault style rifle? How much difference does a 10 round capacity versus a 30 round capacity make against a smart bomb? Again, I'm not arguing for more laws, but I do think much of the dialog is disingenuous and fanning the fears of government tyranny is mostly a propaganda tool; not exclusively, but mostly. Now, if the argument is that there can be no limitation on gun ownership whatsoever under the 2nd amendment, that simply ignores hundreds of years of history and legal interpretation.

I really wonder to what extent are positions formulated first and then some sort of argument concocted afterwards based on superficial analysis and a convenient reading of law or history. People seem more than happy to wave the flag and constitution when they perceive it useful to their own cause of interest (how patriotic we can become), but how many of us are able to defend unpopular and personally disagreeable positions that are clearly deserving of protection under the constitution?

It seems to me that this instance (Colorado), is at least rightly being proposed at the State level (versus federal) and it seems like some of what is being proposed is well within constitutional limits (our nation has a long history of gun control, even in the wild, wild west). I might not agree with the particular proposal, but it isn't a federal overreach (or reach around).

You know you are doing it wrong when JohnnyT starts liking your posts. :fish:

Some gun restrictions are already in place, despite disagreeing with the broad interpretation of the 2nd, and even seem necessary. Afterall, we don't want 10-year-olds walking around with handguns (I guess not legally anyway... they still seem to get their hands on them - funny how that works). We also don't want felons, non citizens, and the criminally insane to get them either.

The point is to not give up additional rules that are unreasonable or have no benefit. Mag restrictions is one of them. Trying to regulate individual sales is another (not to mention, nearly impossibly to enforce until after a crime is committed).

However I agree that some of the rhetoric in this thread is more intended for the larger Federal AWB being pushed and not necessarily the CO proposal. It was inevitable for this thread to continue in that direction.

Keep in mind the people that have access to those drones, bombs, etc may also end up on the flip side of some kind of civil unrest. You don't think we just had farmers with pitchforks fighting off the British do you? This scenario seems like a stretch of the imagination (at least I hope so), but people are required to run those machines, and the people would need those patriots once again in order to defeat tyranny.

If 10 rounds vs 30 doesn't matter, then why the worry about law abiding citizens having them?

If you ever needed a clearer picture to see if they are really doing this to make you safer, ask yourself this...

Why are we not enforcing the laws that are already in place? (Actually enforcement has decreased under the Obama administration... almost makes me wonder if that was to make passing this in his second term a bit easier, but I'll save my tin foil hat for another day)

Why has there not been a single section of this proposal geared toward mental health?

The bills proposed are said to prevent "evil people from doing evil things" and I fail to see it.

 

[t4r4life]

That is all

 

[bofa]

Colorado lawmakers advance gun control bills - Yahoo! News

It's good to see the people are speaking up. I hope lawmakers realize who puts them into office.

This part was my favorite:

During a Senate hearing, Kelly compared the different background check requirements for private and retail sales to having two different lines at the airport, one with security and one without.

"Which one do you think the terrorist is going to choose?" he asked.

Linking this issue to terrorism is fear-mongering, but if we stick with the analogy, thinking that terrorist have any intention of going through modern security screening is laughable. If anything, they would want to entirely circumvent the screening process, otherwise their efforts would be futile, just like people that shouldn't have guns will circumvent the current (as well as any new potential) legislation enacted. Utter BS.

 

[CXS]

By late Monday, two Democrat-controlled Senate committees had passed all seven bills regarding stricter gun control.

Read more: Colorado gun bills: Lawmakers spar for seven rounds of bills - The Denver Post Colorado gun bills: Lawmakers spar for seven rounds of bills - The Denver Post

 

[bofa]

Lovin' Magpul!

In the parking circle around the Capitol, Sen. Greg Brophy created a stir by having Magpul, an Erie-based ammunition-magazine manufacturer, park a Unimog — an enormous four-wheel-drive vehicle — with a Magpul logo in his spot. The company has threatened to leave Colorado if one of the gun measures, limiting ammo rounds, passes.

 

[CXS]

By late Monday, two Democrat-controlled Senate committees had passed all seven bills regarding stricter gun control.


Read more: Colorado gun bills: Lawmakers spar for seven rounds of bills - The Denver Post Colorado gun bills: Lawmakers spar for seven rounds of bills - The Denver Post

 

[bofa]

On a related note, did you guys see this?

01-Mar-13 22:34
"BOULDER AIRLIFT"
PMAGs for Coloradans

During this period of high demand, and with the possibility of pending state legislation, we at Magpul are taking steps to ensure that responsible Colorado residents who want to own standard capacity magazines have the opportunity to do so. To meet this need, we have set up a process for CO residents to purchase limited quantities of magazines from our website.



In order to participate in this program, go to: Magpul Industries Ecommerce



Create your login account and click the “Register” button to submit. Once you receive a “Membership Confirmation” e-mail, forward it to [email protected]h your name, the email used to sign up for the account, and your CO address.



BOTH YOUR BILLING AND SHIPPING ADDRESSES MUST BE IN COLORADO!



Once we verify your CO residency (this process can take up to a week due to the large quantities of emails we receive) you will be added to an authorized Special Purchase group, which will allow you to purchase select magazines from a limited access section of our website. You will then receive a notification e-mail stating that you have been added to this group, and instructions for placing your order will be included.



If you already have a login account at Magpul.com, please just send an e-mail to [email protected] including your name, the email used to sign up for the account, and your CO address, then the process will proceed as above.



NOTE: WE CANNOT SHIP 30 ROUND MAGAZINES TO ADDRESSES WITHIN DENVER DUE TO THE EXISTING CITY BAN.

All sales are subject to our normal compliance checks.

If not, you can send one my way as a thanks. :thanks:

 

[bofa]

I watched the discussion and vote on 1229 today, which passed. It's unbelievable that it was pushed it through despite the mounting ambiguity and acknowledgement of the inability to enforce it or its lack of effect on criminals.

I know it's of little consequence to anyone, but if they blindly pass the rest I may have to reconsider making Colorado our permanent residence. It's looking more and more like an extension of California. It might not be that bad just yet but seems to be headed down that path. I might be more suited for Texas. At the same time I wonder if there will be a change of guard in the next couple of years.

Anyway, hopefully the rest meets more opposition, esp the mag cap. Good luck guys.

 

[RonMAIDEN]

I'm a little disappointed in several of those bills passing but I have all the firepower I'll ever need so it's not going to make me leave the state since we have much more to offer and I don't think the's gun laws really are that strict. As long as I can shoot an intruder in my house and be protected I'm fine.

 

[CXS]

The rest will probably pass in this liberal mecca called Colorado.

Smoke pot and hide your guns!

arty:

 

[bofa]

I'm a little disappointed in several of those bills passing but I have all the firepower I'll ever need so it's not going to make me leave the state since we have much more to offer and I don't think the's gun laws really are that strict. As long as I can shoot an intruder in my house and be protected I'm fine.

I'd be a bit concerned about what they define as a transfer. The way it reads now, if you leave your gun at home with your spouse or drop them off at a friend or family member's house for more than 72 hours that could constitute a transfer, both when you drop it off and pick it back up. Want to lend a gun to a buddy to hit the range or go hunting? That could be a transfer. Don't want to sell it but instead "gift" it? That may be a taxable event. There's just a lot of undefined details, which tells me it's too broad to begin with. I think good intent was there, they just did too much copy + paste from NY laws.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can only ever see it being enforced if a crime is committed though, which doesn't strike me as preventative at all.