E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Brennan Linsley / AP
Colorado State Senator Lucia Guzman, D-Denver, and her colleagues vote yes on one of several gun control bills before the Colorado Legislature at the State Capitol in Denver on Monday.
DENVER -- A gun control package pushed by Colorado Democrats cleared the state Senate on Monday, as sponsors described it as a needed response to Colorado's blood-soaked history of mass shootings.
One Democrat after another rose Monday to talk about restricting gun rights after last July's shooting at a suburban Denver movie theater. The vote came on the eve of an expected plea by the alleged gunman, James Holmes, who is accused of killing 12 people and injuring dozens more.
The measures approved by the Senate included a limit on the kinds of high-capacity ammunition magazines Holmes is accused of using in the theater shooting. Other measures included expanded background checks on private gun sales and a new ban on gun ownership for people facing domestic violence charges.
Republicans argued in vain that the gun controls would not have prevented the theater shooting, nor the school massacre last December in Newtown, Conn. Some cited the 1999 Columbine High School shootings outside Denver.
Democrats stood firm.
"We can't get back the kids we lost, but can refuse to send them more," argued Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver.
The Democratic gun control package in Colorado is being watched nationally to see how a politically moderate state with a gun-loving past responds to the recent shootings in suburban Denver and in Connecticut.
Only one of the five bills heads to Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper to be signed into law. The remaining four must return to the House for more debate, including the ammunition magazine limit and the domestic violence bill. The House is under Democratic control and will likely approve the measures.
Hickenlooper has said he supports the one bill awaiting his signature, a revived fee for people seeking background checks by gun purchasers. Hickenlooper has also called for expanded background checks and has said he'd sign the magazine limit if lawmakers get it to him.
Republicans tried in vain to stop parts of the gun control package. They argued longest against the magazine ammunition limit.
"It's not going to work, and I hate to say that," concluded Sen. Mark Scheffel, R-Parker. "What it will do is infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens."
However, Republicans only succeeded in picking off two of the three Democratic defectors they needed to defeat the ammunition limit. They warned that the gun controls are feel-good measures that won't make Colorado safer.
"Which of these bills we've voted on today would have prevented these tragedies?" asked Sen. Owen Hill, R-Parker.
Democrats insisted that lawmakers have no excuse after those mass shootings not to tighten gun restrictions.
"If we fail to do a common-sense measure ... then shame on us," said Senate Democratic Leader Morgan Carroll, whose district includes the Aurora movie theater.
Democratic Senate President John Morse said Monday he was proud that his caucus was promoting measures to reduce gun violence.
"We will make a difference and increase gun safety in Colorado and decrease gun violence," Morse said.
The remaining gun bill headed to the House requires increased training for a concealed-weapons permit. That measure has had support from both parties and is thought likely to clear the House.
Related content:
Leave a Comment:
In complete abject ignorance. Sighting their beloved messiahs position of ..."What more laws didn't work?" ....."lets do it again"
They are following Rahm Emanuel's advice of not letting a tragedy go to waste.
They are USING innocent victim's to further their agenda.
Starting to think we should have never given "North" Texas over to Colorado
I am glad to see that the voters of Colorado are smart enough to see through the NRA propaganda. And they were smart enough to stay out of Texas. That darn near qualifies them as genius.
>ban on gun ownership for people facing domestic violence charges
>limit [not ban] the kinds of high-capacity ammunition magazines Holmes is accused of using in the theater shooting
>expanded background checks
What rational human being would have a problem with any of this? I agree that knee-jerk legislation seldom solves anything, but these are common sense changes that both democrats and republicans have been asking for since the Reagan administration.
I feel that it is a state issue. The people of Colorado can always move to another state if they object to the laws. I would move. I will avoid Colorado in my travels around the country also.
Steve how could they have given "North" Texas to them when they don't even know what North Texas is? The northern most part of the state is referred to as West Texas. Go figure.
Re-Hash....its whats for dinner.
Joe-1678750
Already a FEDERAL law on that one. I guess one more will FIX things.
Need to explain what this expanded thing is... I already go through not only a BC when I purchase but another when I applied for my CCW.. ALL criminal and mental history actually.. What more do you think they should be checking?
I recall a report indicating the gun jammed.. and it was ALREADY ILLEGAL to bring a firearm into the theater (they even had signs on all the doors saying it was illegal)
More laws that won't be enforced against criminals and only make law abiding citizens less able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights to own a basic firearm...
@ trust verify
Because you won't be able to use a 50 round clip you'll be "less able" to exercise your 2nd amendment rights? You sir, put the "Nut" in Gun Nut.
Eric, you just don't get it, do you? It may be a "50 round" clip today, but will be a 9 round clip tomorrow. What will it be the day after? The laws are already on the books for background checks and the like. When will the existing laws be enforced? When will this gubmint stop over-reaching? When the public is sufficiently disarmed by their definition.
Yes, Eric, he'll be "less able" to exercise his 2nd Amendment right. Why does the 2nd Amendment exist? It's there for the people to protect themselves against threats to their persons. There's a reason that our soldiers swear to protect this country from all threats, foreign and DOMESTIC. The 2nd Amendment wasn't because the framer's were just really big fans of hunting or thought there was going to be a gang problem somewhere down the line. It was because they knew that their own government, as they were British at the time, was oppressing their rights and confiscating their weapons to ensure that they "fell in line". Now I'm not condoning rebellion at this time, but there can be no doubt, ANY restriction or ban IS making a person "less able" to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
Amazing. Well Colorado, you are a product of how you've voted. The old west gives way to big-city anti-constitutionalist liberals.... what a shame. The ignorance is astounding.
yup, following New Yorks lead....which means eventually lowering the magazine capacity below the designed number of rounds for many weapons and....get this....harsher penalties for possession of an 11 round mag than possession of child porn, luring a child, choking someone and several other felonies. Makes perfect sense.
trust_verify
If you need a weapon that can fire a 50 round clip, you are a poor shot. Go to the gun range and get some practice.
marksman-3550582
What should the 'limit be?" none for a clip? Same comment as above, go to the gun range and get some practice.
I guess I missed the part of the second amendment that says "Well regulated militia". If not, then please defy the FAA and carry a gun on an airplane. After all, its a "right to bear arms whenever...
In all fairness i wish to give thanks to Barry and the lib media.
NRA memebership and gun sales are at all time highs...that was YOUR objective after all....right?
Planes are considered private property, and as such would be subject to rules and regulations set by the owners of that property. As far as the limit of weapons, "arms" is defined as weapons such as common to a "militia", and in particular, a "militiamen", so basically anything a light-infantryman in today's modern army would be considered a protected right by the US Constitution.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
(see points 7 and 4 respectively)
So why take it out on the guns? Isn't these issues of mass shootings a direct cause of mental health problems? Why not spend more time and money on the root cause and not so much effort on trying to swipe at piss?
This is genius legislation! Thank goodness the Federal Assault Weapons Ban prevented Columbine!
With the exception of the magazine limit, which I don't think would do much, I support the other measures I read about in the article. Why wouldn't anyone support such common sense regulations? Background checks? Domestic violence? More training? Talk about a no-brainer.
Why is it whenever anyone proposes even the most mild of restrictions on guns, some people react like they're coming to take their firstborn? There's a reason we call them gun "nuts" (not to be confused with sensible gun owners).
I pray come election time all of those Democrats lose their seats
"It's about time"......No, NO limit on clips. You honestly think a limit on a clip will change the outcome of a massacre? Duh. The shooter will JUST GO TO THE RANGE MORE. YOUR WORDS. Get real. Nonsensical laws designed to be "exercised" at will by the politicos for political gain, not safety.
One of my concerns, AG99, is what exactly gets checked? I mean really? We all talk about background checks, but what is being checked and when is it declined? Otherwise, background check is just a talking point without meaning. What defines a mental health issue? After all, according to the US government, 20% of all american's suffered a mental illness within the last year and taking some kind of mental health drug. Do we ban them all? Do we define it further as saying a person seeing a therapist? Well we are highly encouraging people to see them, whether they have an issue or not. Do we undo that work? I'm okay with background checks and generally support them, but I want them defined and more defined what makes you fail them before I fully support the concept.
AG99, do some research, the laws you speak of are in place. The reason that gun owners are up in arms about it, is because the laws always seem to have embedded garbage attached to them. You agree to pass these laws and support those politicians, you have NO idea what else is riding in on those bills. Now why would they create new laws that mirror ones already in place? To slip omnibus bills into them that haven't been passed. Obamacare is a prime example of a law that was passed with countless omnibus legislation attached that had NOTHING to do with healthcare.
Brad: You're right; background checks do need to be defined, but my understanding is they check for things that would make it illegal for you to own a gun like a felony conviction and other restrictions required by law.
marksman: I don't think many of these things are currently required by law. Background checks on private gun sales aren't, nor is more training for concealed carry permits. (I've already said I don't like the magazine ban.)
Now I'm no fan of riders, I think they should be outlawed, but these new laws aren't simply reiterating current restrictions.
How many of the 13 million illegal aliens live in Colorado?
How many of the 13 million illegal aliens who live in Colorado now feel safer?
I can understand the Domestic Violence part, but here's where Dems just don't get it.
1. How are they going to make sure criminals submit to background checks?
2. Who pays? Buyer? Seller? Dealer?
3. Large capacity mags actually saved lives in the Theater. This is a common problem with large mags. They jam very easily. Holmes didn't get thirty rounds out of the 100 he had. The majority of people were killed by a 12 gauge!!!!!!!! You know the one Joe Biden said everyone should get.
4. Not one proposal deals with the actaul criminals.......... Everything restricts the rights of the lawabiding.
AG,
Currently the background checks in all 50 states review criminal and mental health records. It's up to each individual state to submit the records according to their state laws.
Just proud to be a redneck, aren't you?
Do you like the chocolate moonpies the best, or the banana?
I live in PA, our laws are much like the ones being offered in Colorado. I have a permit to carry concealed. I had to go through a background check for every weapon I ever purchased, even when it was only a week between purchases. Much of this is a state issue, and so long as there is a lack of reciprocity between the states, records aren't being shared. Too much of this gun agenda is so that riders can be initiated. A friend of mine sent me an email regarding a rider inside of Obamacare that PREVENTS any new gun laws from being enacted on the federal level. Somewhere on one of the pages in the 1000's. There is also a rider allowing the gubmint to draw monies from your accounts if they see fit. That is in the page 400's.
SAM, yes indeed. Better a redneck than a rent-a- neck.
SAM, yuck, moonpies are nauseating!
So, ready for some fun facts from Iowa? 2 years ago, Iowa became a "shall issue" state, which means that Sheriff's have to allow a permit unless state law forbids the person from having a license. Since then, Iowa has had over 148,000 new gun permit requests. Of those number, only 621 have been denied.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130310/NEWS/303100061
Of course not. These anti gun laws are not, nor were they ever intended to prevent any shootings or other gun crimes. The sole purpose is following the Obama agenda for the disarming of the civilian population, one bit at a time.
Whatever, if any, new anti gun laws they can get shoved through, look for them to come up with even more anti gun laws in the inevitable follow-up. This is only the beginning.
Eighty-five seconds.
That's how long it took for Eduardo Sencion to exit his SUV, empty a 30-round clip from his automatic assault weapon into the air, walk into the IHOP while reloading, empty another clip – injuring 14 people and killing four – walk outside and fire off another 30 rounds, injuring a motorcyclist.
(Carson City Sheriff ) Furlong said many people initally questioned why someone didn't try to stop the shooter. But witnesses and videos confirmed later that the attack happened so fast, no one could have, Fulong said.
Sencion moved fast and shot from the hip. His Norinco MAK90 assault rifle had been modified to fire as an automatic. Officials still don't know who converted it into an illegal machine gun.
-Reno Gazette-Journal
If you have a problem with current laws not been enforced, perhaps you should have a chat with your Republicans representatives in Washington. For years now, they have refused to allow appointments of the ATF Director (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.) The agency has been kneecapped for years by Republicans.
(link: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=republicans+block+atf&oq=republicans+atf )
You are an excellent example of the hypocrisy of Republicans about this. Scream loudly about current laws not being enforced, while at the same time making sure that current laws CANNOT be enforced.
Hopefully the one positive to come out of this democratic idiocy is that the next election will see the liberals decimated, and the Republicans will restore common sense and order to our state.
marksman-3550582
You think it wont? Please by all means, show us your resources that are not from the NRA to prove otherwise. If that's not enough, go up to ANY of the survivors from those 20 murdered children and ask them if it could have made a difference. As far as I am concerned, if it saves one innocent childs life, ITS WORTH IT.
If you need that kind of weapon, then again, YOU are a poor shot. Get some practice.
Could you explain why a Centrist President wants to disarm the civilian population?
If you want to share a paranoid fantasy about how he wants to be the next Hitler, let me stop you before you go off on your rant :- none of your weapons are capable of standing up to the firepower he commands, and the Supreme Court long ago allowed bans of the kind of arms that could take on that kind of firepower.
Need to rename this State to Communist Socialist State fo Colorado.
Yes, I am sure that the general population will be really upset at the reduction of massacres and will soon want order restored.
Hilarious. Restricting the number of bullets that can be fired without loading means we have become Communist Socialists.
This really is very funny, although not for the reason you intend.
Sure Don, keep speaking about things you don't know anything about. I live in CO, and have for over 30 years. These bills had everything to do with the Bloomberg agenda, and nothing to do with the NRA, or the will of the Colorado voters. In fact, the NRA stayed out of the recent skirmish here in CO. Of course, we have our very own, very successful no-compromise gun lobby here in CO (RMGO) -- THANKFULLY!
What this article fails to even mention, is that the most controversial measures (aside from those that were dropped because they were cuckoo and opposition to them was deafening -- like they would receive less than 25% support in the House and Senate) were passed by only ONE VOTE IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, with more than one Democrat voting against. One of the measures must go back to the House and a Dem who previously voted for it is now saying he won't vote for it again. Care to take a gander at why? It's because these measures will do nothing to protect people or save lives, unlike those of you ilk profess they will (although I bet you have no idea what laws are even up here in CO). Furthermore, the most ignorant and anti-Constutionalist Senate and House Democrats who proposed and voted for the measures are being subjected to recalls -- the process is already underway and is likely to be successful, as four of these Dems were elected by very slim margins in the first place (less than 300 votes in one case, less than 400 in another). Why, you say, are Coloradans recalling these politicians? Because they caved to the pro-gun-control lobby and completely ignored their constituents. So while you're going on about the NRA, it was another lobby (the Bloomberg-led Progressive lobby that illegally uses campaign contributions as leverage) that you should be trashing, because they bullied our fickle, useless politicians into ignoring the very people who voted them into office. The noise against these bills was deafening here in CO, but again, you wouldn't know that because you don't live here and you'd rather take everything that NBC has to say as gospel without thinking that there just *might* be something else to the story that a left-leaning rag wouldn't bother to print.
Finally, the Coloradans who actually do qualify as "damn near genius" (those of us who think rationally, not emotionally, and want legislative reform that will actually save lives) will be seeing these measures through the courts and it's likely that most will die there. Nice try though, at trying to make some clever remark about something you're obviously uneducated about...
Yes Byron, because "massacres" happen so often. EYE ROLL
The measures that passed would have had absolutely no effect on either of the highly-publicized shootings here in CO (Columbine and the Aurora theater shooting). At Columbine, Harris and Klebold got their guns illegally, as they were minors. They used a strawman purchaser who passed the same type of background check that is still used nationally today. They also used several 10-round magazines, again, not anything that would be changed by proposed legislation in CO. And might I remind you that this shooting took place smack-dab in the middle of the federal AWB (a ban that even a study commission by the Dept of Justice determined did virtually nothing to curb gun violence)? The most deadly items those two had that day were propane bombs, which thankfully were diffused. (This is all easily verified by a quick Google search. I'm not bothering to give you links to anything, because you only like "your" biased sources, so this way you can pick your own.) In Aurora, James Holmes passed a background check (despite the fact that his irresponsible psychiatrist and the CU campus police he was reported to did nothing to ensure that he was red-flagged in the NICS system). The one high capacity magazine he used jammed and he was forced to use other the other firearms that he had with him -- all with magazines that will still be legal if the proposed legislation is signed by Gov. Hickenlooper becomes law. (Again, these facts are easily verified with a Google search.)
I guarantee you that a "massacre" will happen again. As a society, we have done nothing to address the root causes of gun violence: an inadequate mental health system, an inherently violent culture (movies, video games, TV, music, a government that thinks nothing of publicizing drone attacks on civilians poplutaions), low or nonexistent penalties for those who commit violent acts with guns, including slaps on the wrist for recidivism involving firearms, and gang violence. But if it makes you feel better at night to think that "massacres" will be stopped because a shooter has four or six 15-round magazines instead of two 30-round magazines and had to pay for his own background check to get his gun, then by all means, sleep away...
Gun violence has been falling in the US for decades. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports don't lie, but anti-gunners do.
Byron Raum 1.40
So, you consider Obama to be a Centrist President? You expose yourself.
It is better to remain silent and be thought the fool than to open your mouth….
Sound familiar?
I trust that a study commissioned by the Department of Justice and National Institute of Justice qualifies as a "non-NRA" resource.
www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
I here MAGPUL Co. may leave the state. That will cost CO. a couple thousand jobs
It's about time,
Then ban cars. It's the number one killer of children in this country. People don't "NEED" cars. We did just fine for thousands of years without them.
Heya Progressives......
What are you going to do to restrict "Felons", "Gang Bangers", and "Drug Cartel members" from OBTAINING GUNS ?
Nah, these are just small groups and will do no harm to the law abiding citizens.
Next legislation: making it legal to have multiple wives or husbands (Bigamy is OK).
Colorado....Welcome to the Progressive States (California, New York, Wisconsin, Washington State) club.
Hey, ya'll I know, I know, I know how to prevent all these shootings, let's make a law for it to be illegal for any one to shoot someone else, and if they do, they get life in prison or death. That will solve all these crimes. Orwell was right.
Yes, we will do it again-- and again, and again, and again! We will not stop passing new laws until it is illegal for anyone to own any kind of firearm, period. You can count on it.
ldo
I know, "law abiding citizens' never do anything to the public with their guns.
Why ask David Keene President of the NRA on the arrest of his SON for being a road rage shooter.
Oooops... only criminals commit crimes.
P.S. Since you are not fond of 'laws' on guns, do you obey the 'law' when getting on an airplane? If not, please go up to the TSA and tell them, they are denying your rights...
It's about time,
Flying is not a right!!!!!!!! If you want to take your firearm, then there are ways of doing that. If you want to keep it on your person, the you can drive or take a bus.
CO. and the rest of the states and the federal government are doing nothing but attempting to pass "feel good,, warm fuzzy,,,, there we did something" laws. None of them will do anything at all to slow or stop the problems of "nut cases" with guns. They will attack the law abiding honest citizen, but the politicians don't care about that. It is only,,,, "vote for me I did something". Very sad that we as a country will not look at the horrible problem we have in this country,,,,PEOPLE. To look at the real problem would be hard, easier to pass do nothing laws.
These Dems in Colorado really don't have a clue, do they? I wonder if it will take another massacre there for them to realize gun controls like they approved don't really work. Infringements on law abiding citizens don't change criminal behavior. It's been show repeatedly when gun bans are enacted.
Chicago has similar gun controls. They have worked wonderfully there, haven't they?
This is a media ploy and pandering to their left wing uneducated base.
Of course, we must also realize, this is the state that thinks it's ok to smoke pot (against federal laws) but it's not ok to have a standard 30 round magazine. Go figure...
Scary thought's ....how many were RE-elected ? .....and how many will be again?
Are you suggesting the past massacres proved the existing laws work at preventing massacres? Is the answer to just do nothing?
Mocha...the answer is to try and solve the problem of violence and stop blaming the tools. You will never make a difference passing these kinds of laws.
Gecko…..You can’t solve mental illness or anger, the best you can do is to keep weapons out of their hands
mocha
Are you suggesting that this is NOT media induced mass hysteria to perpetuate the current administrations agenda?
FACTS are just that FACTS....No amount of "feel good" B.S. laws are going to do anything to prevent crime in any way. They do however serve to divert, which is there purpose.
By governmental decreed intrusion on the rights of the law abiding citizens? And that will work exactly HOW?
You think everyone should carry guns and people that possess a plant should be locked in a cage. Go figure...
So you have all of these so called "FACTS", what is the answer? Your only answer appears to be to do nothing and accept the fact that children are going to get shot in school no matter what we do, so why do anything. Its like saying lets get rid of the speed limit, because some people will speed anyway, so why have it. What is wrong with limiting the amount of carnage that one idiot can inflict in 30 seconds? As far as Chicago goes, you should have to check your gun at the city limits, just like Tombstone.
MMC ( and the other Dems using the children as a focal point )
Please stop. IF it was " for the Children " then the feel good Dems would be protesting Abortion everyday of their existence. How many MILLIONs of kids are legally murdered every year ( the vast majority of them being from minorities. )
I do not own a single gun, but I am not a supporter of these rules. Facts are Facts, when it comes to Law, that is what you should be looking at. Not the feel good in the moment laws they are pushing through now. ALL this does is harm the legal gun owner. THAT is the issue at hand. You show me a law that punishes the illegal gun owner, and ill be right there behind you. I support the gun rights group, cause who knows when the Gvmnt is going to try to take away something I do believe in. You have to take a stand somewhere....
um jeremy
the libs are PRO CHOICE in that argument. not this one however...yet the use of children for the sake of agendas IS sick.
So when did 30-round mags become "standard"? Maybe around the time social security became an "entitlement"? Please cite ONE reason that anyone not in law enforcement would need to have a weapon with a 30-round capacity.
Don, I disagree. You can identify, treat, and if needed restrain those people. We dont even make that attempt today. Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens in a way that will have no impact on crime is not the answer. Anti-gun folks always complain that doing nothing is not the answer but here you are just giving up on any efforts to work with the mentally ill.
Two....30rd mags became the standard in the 60s. That is what the factory designed and shipped with the firearms in question.
To your other point no, I dont have to show NEED to exercise a RIGHT. You dont ask someone to show their NEED for free speech. You dont ask someone to show NEED to vote. You dont ask someone their NEED for due process. Rights arent based on need.
Colorado Dem's have awaken a sleeping giant, they will lose their majorities in 2014.
Toyoland,
I think the blow back is going to be much greater then they think.. Hunting is a BIG Business in Colorado, all you have to do is look around the web to see how many large hunting groups are now going to other states to spend their money.
toyoland
My thought exactly. I see a change of Party domination in the making. Colorado isn't a Liberal stronghold.
Hey All,
Remember that 1994-2004 Assault weapons ban? It also included a ban on high capacity magazines. Did that stop the 22 school shootings where more than 1 person was killed? Did that stop 151 children and adults from being killed in schools? Did that stop more than 300 gun instances in schools? Can someone tell me what year the North Hollywood Bank Shootout occurred?
@Gecko:
Voting is NOT a right, and neither is a 30-round mag. Voting is a privilege, and a 30-round mag is just plain unnecessary. They did not become "standard" in the 60's and are NOT standard now. I was in Nam in the 60's and 20-round mags were standard issue with the M-16. Also, I didn't ask anyone what their perceived rights were, I asked WHY you would need a 30 round magazine unless you were a LEP.
Democrats are freaking stupid!!!! These bans and restrictions not going to do a damn thing for that any criminal or person that wants a firearm will just go to the next state over or to Mexico to get what they need. All this is doing is wasting taxpayers time and money! And I will prove it by calling my buddy in Colo. and buy guns all day long and I don't even live there and I will do this after they pass all these bans and post it on YouTube for all to see that these bans don't work. Just another way these politicians can collect money on the stupid, weak, pathetic, liberals!
@2dogsloving - I would have to disagree, have you seen how these politicians are acting today, I do honestly believe that a 30 round magazine is more than necessary. People should start learning how to build their own drones and weapons for that our government has gotten way to big for their pants. POWER is for the people, not for the 1%, not for the elite, and clearly not just for the libs or any politicians!
Voting is judicially confirmed as a right. Please read the Constitution's referencing amendments in regards to prohibitions against voting. The "right" most referenced in the Constitution is "the right to vote" (it's mentioned five times in the document). While there is no "Amendment __" specifying solely the right to vote, that right is implied in other Amendments to the Constitution, as noted above. From www.usconstitution.net:
The right to bear arms has legally been determined as the individual right to use/own anything that is "in common usage" (see SCOTUS rulings US v Heller and US v Miller). Thirty round magazines have been in common usage by civilians and LEO for decades. They are absolutely "standard" and if you think otherwise, you know little about firearms. No asked you what your idea of another's "perceived needs" are. You don't have to prove that you need something (a .45 ACP, an AR-15, a standard factory 17-round magazine for your Glock 17) in order to legally own it, per the US Constitution, like it or not. If you want to change the Constitution, there's a process for that. Good luck!
1-wrong
2-wrong
3-wrong
Next case.
chris-2252558
Necessary for what? The government has been taking your money out of your paycheck since 1943, at what point do you think they "got too big for their pants"? A 30-round mag, or even a 20mm auto cannon isn't going to stop the government from doing what they're going to do.
My own feeling is this: My constitutional right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes before the right to bear arms. It was written first and it comes first. I am not happy with the idea of anyone but LEPs having 30-round mags in public.
They reap what they sow, a nice expensive lawsuit in-front of SCOTUS which will find these measures go too far to be considered "reasonable".
When NY,CALI,NJ, MD, and CO lose at the supreme court the blow-back will be complete and even long standing AWB will be considered unconstitutional and then what? These states don't understand the law of unintended consequences, they are about to step in it.
They should have left their AWBs in place and not pushed it this far. Instead they stirred the hornets nest.
And you base that on what, Ted? Surely not on the fact that the current Supreme Court has ruled that government can place restrictions and regulations on gun ownership.
"the current Supreme Court has ruled that government can place restrictions and regulations on gun ownership."
No,the current SCOTUS did not,and has not ruled that the government can place restrictions on gun ownership-they actually ruled that the government can place REASONABLE restrictions on gun ownership-
Huge difference.
All these bullsh*t,knee jerk,feel-good laws enacted will never hold up on appeal-as they go way too far in restricting gun ownership,and gun rights.
Ted = the reason the GOP is going extinct. Delusional much?
For those who are following the legislation, and may want a Colorado perspective:
One of the bills (manufacturer and owner liability) has already been killed by the Senate leader because they knew it was untenable, based on already established Federal law.
I look forward to the background check fee passing, and then being overturned in the courts because it is similar to a poll tax, which was found unconstitutional with respect to another guaranteed right ... the right to vote.
The bill to seize firearms from people involved in domestic disturbances will pass. It may stand, after being modified to apply only to people convicted, rather than to anyone charged.
The bill to restrict magazine capacity will not pass.
The bill forbidding concealed carry on campus has already been killed by its sponsor.
The bill requiring universal background checks is the only one that is still uncertain.
@ eric - then your just as delusional as ted if your affiliated with any political party!!
In a sad way....I wonder what they will say when it happens again in CO?
Every article today is "gun" related .....WHY?.......whats the E.O. pen doing today?
At least it's not climate change. You should be happy. ;)
IA.ScooterTramp
Because YOU started the discussion about guns in #1.15
And this new legislation will limit gun access to the criminal element.....how?
These laws work very well in the fantasy land in which the libs reside...not so well in the real world however.
Was James Holmes a criminal?
The vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings are obtained LEGALLY. And your solution to this issue is to do nothing?! Anyone with half a brain would see no issue with a more comprehensive background check on all firearms purchases, banning weapons from individuals with a known history of violence, and limiting the number of rounds that can be pumped out of an assault riffle (which has one purpose - to kill humans).
The vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings are obtained LEGALLY. And your solution to this issue is to do nothing?! Anyone with half a brain would see no issue with a more comprehensive background check on all firearms purchases, banning weapons from individuals with a known history of violence, and limiting the number of rounds that can be pumped out of an assault riffle (which has one purpose - to kill humans).
The vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings are obtained LEGALLY. And your solution to this issue is to do nothing?! Anyone with half a brain would see no issue with a more comprehensive background check on all firearms purchases, banning weapons from individuals with a known history of violence, and limiting the number of rounds that can be pumped out of an assault riffle (which has one purpose - to kill humans).
just how much more "comprehensive" would you like? they already check ALL the national and local databases when a BC is run..
No issue with that... Just make it fee free or it becomes a poll tax.
already a federal law.. lets make another one why don't we.
We have heard that about guns in general... what next? Bows and arrows, which serve no purpose other than to kill. Define LIMIT.. I presume you would have issue with muzzle loaders if they had pre measured powder.
"And this new legislation will limit gun access to the criminal element.....how?"
Only in the minds of those who have drunk the Kool-Aid of the left-the ones who reside in the land of rainbows and unicorns.
The problem is when it comes time to enforce those federal laws, the 2nd amendment lobby says no. It is very easy to spin it as a crackdown on constitutionally protected activities, even if only the criminal element is targeted. Never mind the ability to get the agencies responsible for enforcement funding. Many of the loudest gun advocates are also the most paranoid when it comes to the government.
The problem is when it comes time to enforce those federal laws, the 2nd amendment lobby says no. It is very easy to spin it as a crackdown on constitutionally protected activities, even if only the criminal element is targeted. Never mind the ability to get the agencies responsible for enforcement funding. Many of the loudest gun advocates are also the most paranoid when it comes to the government.
...and the Feds are cracking down on Marijuana like gangbusters in Colorado how? Can we blame to pot lobby for this?
Part of it is self restraint, part of it is pressure from the medicinal marijuana lobby.
And look, I don't make this stuff up. The NRA has called for the defunding of the ATF, the agency responsible for enforcement. The NRA has called for the withholding of reports from the ATF concerning problem gun dealers who deal to felons. The NRA has lobbied to really remove the regulatory authority of the ATF and dulled their powers. Of course the NRA isn't to blame for their lobbying, the conservative congressmen and women who listened to them are. And let's not forget that Reagan vowed to completely dissolve the ATF. The NRA was a fierce lobbyist for the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 which made it all but impossible to prosecute problem gun dealers. We know from a 2003 ATF report that approximately 1% of gun dealers are problem gun dealers and are solely responsible for well over 50% of the guns used in crime. And finally, the NRA was a fierce lobbyist for the separation of the ATF from the Treasury Department, which requires the ATF director to be confirmed by the Senate. As a result, no nominee has been confirmed since, even ones from President Bush. The bureau has been operating with an interim director for years.
But again, the lobby isn't directly responsible. It is the Congressmen and women who listen to the lobbyist. And conservatives have always followed lock-step.
And conservatives have always followed lock-step.
Of course they do. Otherwise the liberals twhom blindly vote for any piece of gun control legislation* would prevail (as they have to date, as every gun control bill ever passed have been done by Democrats).
*Like this piece of @!$%#: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Conn-Lawmaker-Pushes-Barney-Fife-Law-Limits-Guns-To-One-Round
Hey, how are those background checks working for the cartels? Doesn't Mexico already have all these bans and restrictions??? You know, what they really should ban and put restrictions on, is stupid people!!!!
A common sense solution to end this discussion is to enforce the laws already on the books. That's coming from gun advocates. But those laws can't be enforced either because the agencies responsible have been stripped of their authority, stripped of their funding, or stripped of their ability to prosecute. So how do you propose we enforce the laws already on the books under these conditions? Conditions created by conservative politicians voting the way the lobbyist whispering in their ear wanted.
The alternative to voting for an ill-conceived, stupid, ineffective piece of gun control legislation is not to remove the ability and authority to enforce existing law. That's just stupid.
But those laws can't be enforced either because the agencies responsible have been stripped of their authority, stripped of their funding, or stripped of their ability to prosecute.But those laws can't be enforced either because the agencies responsible have been stripped of their authority, stripped of their funding, or stripped of their ability to prosecute.
Really? I had no idea that the Connecticut State Troopers weren't allowed to arrest me anymore!
Look, as bad as the ATF's 2006 kick in the balls was, it's not like they're the only game in town. FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement all have roles to play, along with Coast Guard and Border Patrol.
It's also not like they've done a good job before then, either: nevermind Fast & Furious, how about Waco?
How about Ruby Ridge?
How about Project Gunrunner? Not a great track record.
Heck, the ATF's stupidity (back in the 80s when some 75% of their prosecutions were aimed at ordinary civilians) is the reason WHY the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 got written!
The alternative to voting for an ill-conceived, stupid, ineffective piece of gun control legislation is not to remove the ability and authority to enforce existing law. That's just stupid.
Not necessarily. We have 70+ years of Democratic laws that show the desire to restrict legal gun ownership regardless of enforcement, from the National Firearms Act of 1934 through to today.
Local police and the FBI have other priorities. It seems wasteful to have a 1/4 of an agency devoted to this kind of thing, yet unable to take action. The CIA isn't particularly concerned with US arms dealers unless they are trafficking beyond our boarders or are foreign nationals. And even then, they have bigger fish to fry. Local authorities lack the jurisdiction beyond their state boarders, which is a problem in the case of Chicago where a lot of the guns being used by gangs are bought in neighboring Indiana. That leaves mainly the FBI who lack the resources to investigate every little thing the way local authorities do.
Interesting thing I found: The feds are forbidden from conducting more than 1 inspection per year of gun dealers. Sure I wouldn't want honest dealers being harassed, but don't you think that dealers who are breaking the law should be under more scrutiny?
I tried to look into incidents where gun dealers were shut down and could only find a handful. Some of them were only shut down after the local media did "undercover journalism."
The FBI has a horrendous record, yet we're suggesting they should be part of the solution.
I'm saying that the alternative to gun control laws is not the polar opposite (curtailing of the agencies responsible for enforcing laws). Legislators could simply vote "no" or work to overturn any laws that do pass.
And they thought it was bad before these unconstitutional laws were passed. All they have to do is look at Chicago and they'll see what they have coming.
I'm sick of this. You're employing faulty logic. Are the laws on the books in Chicago a response to violence or a cause of violence? They are a response to violence. So the argument is not "pass these laws and become like Chicago." The argument is "these laws don't work, look at Chicago."
Here's the reality in Chicago. The police were so good at locking up gang leaders that gangs no longer have leaders. And enrollment in a gang is automatic based on where you live, whether you participate or not. These gangs get their guns from a variety of sources, stolen from homeowners, borrowed from friends, found hidden in public, and bought from gun runners who buy them by the duffle-bag full in Indiana. Gun violence stems from stupid BS, from losing a fist fight, to revenge killings, to walking through a rival's turf. (Remember, enrollment is automatic whether you participate or not.) Gangs having guns spurs people who wouldn't otherwise touch a gun to get one just to protect themselves. They can get them easily from the same sources as the gangs, or from the Chicago suburbs.
Colorado doesn't have these problems. So Colorado will not become like Chicago by passing these laws.
Just for you "Anti gun nuts" out there Try this before you whine Ban "guns"....let me know if you have any other results of ANY kind..
Yesterday I told my rifle that there was a ban about to be put into effect that would effect it directly. i further explained that It was all due to its own actions and that therefor it would have to fend for itself and take responsibility for its own actions.
I then placed my rifle and a few extra high capacity clips in a wheelchair by the door and left. When i returned several hours latter ...guess what?.... it had not shot ANYONE !!! ...This despite having plenty of ammo AND mobility ( the wheelchair).....
My conclusion?......
.
....I must just have a lazy a$$ rifle.
I thought guns were tools and not people?! and your talking to your gun?!
ever hear of abstract?.....but why not, it listens better then your avarage run of the mill criminal.
ever hear of gestalt - the sum total of your rant is that your talking to your gun.
fyi - therapy is a good thing not bad...
I'm not anti guns Scooter, I own plenty. I am anti gun Nut however. Not one of these laws are anti gun, or anti legitimate gun owner. I'm starting to wonder if you should be allowed to own one. You do appear to suffer from paranoid delusions.
Make that lazy bum get a job. I ain't gonna support it with my tax dollars so it can stay home and watch TV all day.
Our conclusion: you are indeed a loony-toon, gun-strokin' head case. Talks to his dang gun, I mean, pleez! (was gonna say get a grip, but hey)
Well Hell's Bells anyway, Colorado can make 5000 new laws and guess what ? When someone gets a wild hair up there butt to do something so very wrong like a mass shooting at a gun free zone then which of the 5000 old laws to you blame, " I BLAME YOU IDIOTS MAKING THESE STUPID LAWS " You elected officials should all be given mandatory drug test and mandatory competency tests to make sure the laws you make are sane laws not laws made by arrogant control freaks...
Gun ownership is at 35%. The extremist gun owners who scream and recoil at any regulations are an even smaller group.
35%..?.....please cul, i expect better from you....but tell ya what...i will play
The libs and sheeple raising all the fuss and playing into the media induced mass hysteria diversionary tactics comprise what percentile cul? 2%? - 3% ? Certainly they have 95% backing by the lame stream, but little else.
http://rt.com/usa/gun-ownership-decline-us-111/
Is that better? :)
Culhealth.......pretty lame.......How about this?......Somebocy calls you or sends you a survey to ask you if you have a firearm in your house. How many people do you think don't answer or say its none of your business? (idiot)
A recent poll? You mean like the poll on MSNBC yesterday that surveyed 500 gun shops and somehow extrapolated that 40,000 people try to get straw purchasers every year? How about this, I polled myself and two of my neighbors and I have concluded that 100% of the people in the US have guns. Gun ownership is most definitely NOT on the decline, as the real indicator of this would be FBI instant checks, which have increased every one of the last 5 years.
What's lame Jeff (and Moose) is your facile response based on a misunderstanding of where the various polls were conducted across the country and then collated to come up with a single unified report.
You can see the report on the polls here
Polls can be slanted to produce the desired conclusion...everybody knows that. If the Violence Policy Center conducts a poll, you can be sure it will come out anti gun.
1. Would you prefer having your genitals removed with a dull knife or give up your right to free assembly?
conclusion: Most people would like to give up their right to free assembly.
No, most aren't that blatant, but you get the idea.
Why don't you just go read the poll questions instead of just creating hypothetical generalities and see if you can find any you consider slanted. I remember conservatives were dismissing the pre-election polling saying Romney would lose too.
While I have no issue with background checks this sounds like they want only those who can pay to be able own... Sure sounds like someone from NY.
Forcing people to pay to exercise their rights is no different than a poll tax. This is wrong, just plain wrong.
How much are the fees for background checks?
I'm guessing that those fees will be less than what I just paid for a shopping cart full of groceries or the tank of gas I just put in my car. Those groceries and the gas will be gone in a week. If I pay a one-time fee when I purchase a gun, the cost will be amortized over the many years or decades that I can own that gun.
I don't think this fee will be much of an impediment to people who wish to purchase a gun.
Paying a fee for a background check is no different than paying a printer to print a publication. It's no different than having to buy a poster board and markers to make a sign for a rally. It's no different than paying a tithe to your church or the gas to get there. You're paying for the people who set up, maintain, and run the service that you are using. This is the ultimate conservative dream of government, you don't have to pay taxes for services you do not use. You could tax everybody just a little more to make it "free" for all gun owners.
Funny thing, a poll tax was considered 100% constitutional until the 24th amendment in 1962 which bars that practice specifically.
I find this funny...
It is a poll tax pure and simple..
Look at late last year with Voting and the requirement to show an ID. The left was using the poll tax as a reason it cannot be done. Now when it is something they agree with, its now acceptable.
Cannot have it both ways guys.. Either its a poll tax, or its not.
This is easy: It isn't a poll tax because it isn't a poll! Only a poll tax is considered unconstitutional and the founders were clearly OK with poll taxes, because it was constitutional up until the ratification of the 24th amendment in the 1960's.
You can say it is like a poll tax. But at the end of the day, it ISN'T a poll. Poll taxes are singled out in the 24th amendment. That's it. If you don't like the idea of a fee for a background check, you will have to amend the constitution.
Yes, let us all get EMOTIONAL and pass a bunch of laws because that is how our system works. Let us not think about the immediate or long term effects of our decisions, but pass these laws because this is how we FEEL. Emotion - ignorance at work.
I have an idea- let's make it against the law to kill anyone.
Oh, wait... you mean there's ALREADY a law like that in place??? Well, then - what's the worry????
And that's the way it should be - states should decide their gun laws, not the federal government.
True, the states should. That said the states should not be able to infringe on your rights and that is what is happening here.
I have no problem with that. In that scenario you can move to the State with your beliefs.
Or have a long memory and in the future vote out the ones that voted for this.
Great!!!!! I want all of the gun manufacturers to move their facilities here! WE ca use the jobs and the way the wind is blowing it may be best to nave the manufacturer's somewhere they cannot be seized.
navyvet,
You are correct, they do add a lot of jobs and pay fairly well with great benefits.
If they start enforcing the laws that they have we would be safer. There is something wrong with the govt if most if not all people say that new laws will not be enforced and are useless. As far as people I know and most of what I read nobody will even abide by the new laws. Most people who have the stuff they are trying to make unlawful dont care they already have it or there is so much of it that nothing they do will matter. SO WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAY.
Colorado the next Illinois and Denver the next Chicago...Good luck with that nonsense.
I really wish people who keep holding up Chicago as having tough gun laws would do some research before spouting their nonsense. The Chicago gun ban was overturned by the court years ago. It is also easy to drive across the street into Indiana and buy anything you want or go into the suburbs. Heck you can even take public transportation. It is also verified that a large percentage of the handguns used in street crime come from a couple of gun shops in Mississippi. Gang members are making hundreds of straw purchases and bringing them back to the city in a new version of the underground railroad.
No Illinois resident can legally buy a handgun in Indiana or Wisconsin.
Tappy..Chicago IS extremely restrictive. The laws, even after the band was overturned, are draconian.
They were just sued and lost in the last 2 months, and the court ordered them to restructure their gun laws, so they are still enforcing it to this day.
My comment wasn't so much about "gun laws" as about the FOID (Firearm Owners ID) that Illinois enacted years ago, but yes, Chicago is still somewhat restricted on guns. The criminals didn't get the message and the only ones abiding by any of those stupid laws, and paying to do so, are law-abiding citizens. It isn't working. Most criminals don't buy their guns, and if so probably not legally, so they would never face a background check and they surely won't register them.
Nevermind Chicago, it's actually illegal to carry a gun in ILLINOIS unless you're a law enforcement officer (or are a particular public official).
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-30/news/ct-met-concealed-carry-20130130_1_law-enforcement-officers-legal-guns-gun-owners
It's that nice! Meanwhile, Illinois ranks 13th for violent crime. Other states with without such draconian gun laws rate far lower, such as Virginia (34) and even Connecticut (37). One is hard pressed to find ANY state that has a higer rate of violence than Illinois with less restrictive gun laws.
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html
The simple mindedness of our politicians never ceases to amaze me. With over three hundred million guns and countless millions of gun accessories already on the street do they really think passing new laws will have any impact on gun violence? It's obvious there must be a maximum allowable IQ when determining whether or not someone is qualified to hold pubic office. Let's see now, to be the governor of Colorado one must be at least 35 years old, be a US citizen and resident of the state of Colorado and have an IQ no higher than the current room temperature.
Actually, I think the majority of our politicians are pretty smart. It's what they frequently use those smarts for that bothers me.
Good for you, Colorado, you violent state you.....
Proud to live in the progressive state of Colorado!
I am proud to live in the progressive state of Colorado!
where nuts run loose. I spent some time in Boulder. What a bunch of kooks!!
Being proud to live in a state that just voted to restrict civil rights...gotta wonder about you kathleen.
Nothing that they passed restricts my civil rights, this time. I wasn't really happy with any of these measures but I don't feel that they greatly impact me as a gun owner. They are just a minor inconvenience, not a violation of my civil rights. When the next election comes up, I will not be voting for anyone that voted for these changes. But in the meantime, this vote will not impact many of us other than to cause a slight sense of outrage that they passed more meaningless laws.
"Progressives" and similar types have ALWAYS been willing to restrict individual freedom in order to advance equality and security. Their motives are good, but they ignore history's numerous and repeated examples of how ceding power from individuals to the state ultimately leads to various forms of totalitarianism.
"The finest opportunity ever given the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom." - Lord Acton
There is a popular saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Accordingly, the Democrat's "gun control" legislation (which truly is "feel good" only) meets this popular definition of insanity. Stacking more and more anti-gun laws on top of the thousands already on the books (which already are not enforced very vigorously) will not check this surge in violence. It will, however, chip away at the constitutional rights of ordinary law-abiding citizens. Since it is already illegal to commit murder, do you really think a person contemplating purpetrating a mass shooting will be at all concerned about violating another law by acquiring a high capacity magazine?
Rather than passing more ineffective, unenforced gun laws, we would be much more likely to positively influence this problem if we looked at the root cause - people's behaviors - and tried to find ways to correct those problems. But then that's hard to do and passing laws is relatively easy - so the political class, as always, opts for the easy way out instead of actually solving the problem.
It's fine in theory to try to detect and correct behavioral problems in advance, but as you point out this is nearly impossible to do in practice. This is exactly the reason that restricting guns makes so much sense.
Restricting guns makes no sense in this case.
People, it's a step in the right direction, not a fix-all. Your make a good point, Disappointed. However, other countries (Australia, for instance) implemented gun control legislation and, over time (15 plus years) it reduced gun violence and mass shootings. That is a fact, look it up.
The 2nd Amendment is not more important than the rights of Americans to be safe from gun-toting thugs. And while no piece of legislation will make much difference if the government won't enforce it, there has to be a gradual change, because this society of today is exponetially more violent than then one the Constitutional Congress lived in. Our Constitution is not a static list of rules and rights, but a framework that must be adjusted as things change. The right to bear arms does not mean that ordinary citizens can own nuclear missles, chemical weapons, tanks, figher-jets and bunker buster bombs. No more is there a balance between the armaments and training of the US professional military and ordinary Joe's at home with a hunting rifle or AR-15. So get off of this tired NRA argument that owning an AK-47 is somehow going to prevent the government from taking away our rights via military power. This is a government by the people, with elected officials. Much different from the monarchies of Europe that our fore fathers were concerned about in late 1700's. One difference being that lobbies like the NRA buy Congressmen and women, who in turn work to inhibit agencies like the ATF from enforcing the laws. So some NRA members can sell more guns.
I don't usually agree with the Democrats, but I do on guns.
Glad to see some common sense and some resistance to the NRA among our state legislators.
What I don't agree with is any type of alteration of our Constitution, especially on a emotional level. This is where is starts and for those who are silent..shame on you!
A new welcome sign is going up at all highways crossing the Colorado state line.
CRIMINAL SANCTUARY STATE
Yep, as your leaving to enter Wyoming....
I hope the people of Colorado enjoy the negative economic impact this will bring. Magpul is going to leave your state, take a few thousand jobs, and millions of dollars with it. I bet the state of Texas will send you a nice thank you card after they get all those jobs and money..
Oh yea shoot em up Texas the festering boil of the south west. Great Point. Jobs are much more important than people being murdered.
I've decided to visit Colorado this year for my vacation. At least I'll feel safer than going to states like AZ, FL, and TX.