Colorado gun ban

[LuketheDog]

Carry on. I'm out.

This always rubs me as something you say when you can't make a strong argument for your case.

I'm not some gun-worshiping redneck, I'd be willing to be 'inconvenienced' a little more if it stopped innocent people from dying, but it won't, so I can't get behind this legislation. And come on, you KNOW it won't make a lick of difference.

 

[Dsnow9]

This always rubs me as something you say when you can't make a strong argument for your case.

I'm not some gun-worshiping redneck, I'd be willing to be 'inconvenienced' a little more if it stopped innocent people from dying, but it won't, so I can't get behind this legislation. And come on, you KNOW it won't make a lick of difference.

Preach!

 

[bucdoego]

Some of you might be interested in these two videos. Attorney William Kirk, Washington Gun Law, gives a quick overview of what is happening in Colorado. If you visit his channel, you will notice that many similar (read: cut-and-paste) versions are being proposed in other democrat-controlled state legislatures as well.

Here he addresses several so-called 'Assault Weapons Bans' that have been appealed to SCOTUS recently. Bianchi v Brown (Maryland) is the Fourth Circuit case, while two Illinois cases from the Seventh are also awaiting notice as to grant of cert. There are some leading law firms and Attorneys involved in these three cases, too. Still, most don't see 'Assault Weapons Bans' being ruled upon until the '24-'25 Court session. When these cases do get settled, they will likely address some of the key issues in these recently proposed restrictions.

 

[Moserkr]

@bucdoego I like Washington Gun Law, great channel. Worthwhile to follow.

 

[bucdoego]

@bucdoego I like Washington Gun Law, great channel. Worthwhile to follow.

Right. I'll add The Four Boxes Diner (Mark Smith), Armed Scholar (Anthony Miranda) and Tom Grieve. They are all attorneys with a focus on 2A/gun rights.

 

[Shodan]

So much ridiculousness in this bill. I learned that whatever it is that these geniuses define as "assault weapons" have been marketed for" hyper masculinity". Does that hold true for the ones decorated in hello kitty garb?

"THE FIREARMS INDUSTRY HAS SPECIFICALLY MARKETED18
ASSAULT WEAPONS AS TACTICAL, HYPER MASCULINE , AND MILITARY19
STYLE IN A MANNER THAT OVERTLY APPEALS TO THE VERY PEOPLE MOST20
LIKELY TO ACQUIRE SUCH WEAPONS AS A MEANS TO GAIN INFAMY AS A21
MASS SHOOTER;"

- Wrong! The "ASSAULT WEAPONS" are marketed exclusively to DoD and L.E. suppliers. That marketing has a lot of it's own problems, namely sometimes bulk-buy prices can become several times higher than retail prices for very similar civilian weapons.

Now, if the tongue-in-cheek of this is implying that U.S. soldiers and police officers are "THE VERY PEOPLE MOST LIKELY TO GAIN INFAMY AS A MASS SHOOTER" - then that's an whole different plot twist...

 

[Shodan]

I know you didn’t ask me this question, but to me it’s simple. There is no discussion to have. We as Americans have the right to own firearms. There should not be any restrictions or fancy wording to demonize said firearms to align with someone’s misguided agenda. Either one believes in the bill of rights, or one doesn’t, and to the people who think they can cherry pick those rights needs to find a different country to call home in my opinion.

Well you've nailed it quite precisely - these people believe the original Bill of Rights is an outdated document which is detrimental to the modern "civilized" society, and should be replaced with... some "more progressive" Bill of Rights.

 

[Shodan]

Which part or parts are incorrect?

• MASS SHOOTINGS ARE A SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THE DISTINCTLY AMERICAN EPIDEMIC OF GUN VIOLENCE
• GUN VIOLENCE OF ALL TYPES ARE AN ONGOING AND GROWING THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ALL COLORADANS
• IN RECENT YEARS, AMERICANS HAVE ENDURED AN UNFATHOMABLE AVERAGE OF MORE THAN ONE MASS SHOOTING PER DAY
• CONSISTENTLY, THE DEADLIEST MASS SHOOTING INCIDENTS IN THE UNITED STATES INVOLVED THE USE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS OR HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES
• EVEN AS COLORADO HAS UNDERTAKEN CONCERTED COMMON15 SENSE EFFORTS TO DECREASE GUN VIOLENCE,COLORADO HAS STILL BEEN THE LOCATION OF SEVERAL MASS SHOOTINGS PERPETRATED WITH AN ASSAULT WEAPON
• WELL-KNOWN PLACES THAT SHOULD HAVE ONLY EVER BEEN KNOWN AS SITES SAFE FOR JOY, LEARNING, COMMERCE, AND CARE ARE INSTEAD FOREVER ASSOCIATED WITH TRAGEDY OF MASS SHOOTINGS PERPETRATED BY WEAPONS WHICH SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE FOR USE
• ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY USED IN PUBLIC MASS SHOOTINGS,
• THE TACTICAL FEATURES ON ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT MERELY COSMETIC, AND THEY ARE NOT MINOR. THEY DIFFERENTIATE ASSAULT WEAPONS FROM OTHER FIREARMS BY ALLOWING A SHOOTER TO BETTER CONCEAL WEAPONS, MAKE IT EASIER TO FIRE A HIGH VOLUME OF AMMUNITION IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME WHILE MAINTAINING ACCURACY, MAXIMIZING CATASTROPHIC INJURY, AND PROVIDING EASE OF USE FOR LESS THAN EXPERT USERS.
• ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR SELF DEFENSE AND ARE NOT WELL-SUITED FOR HUNTING, SPORTING, OR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN MASS KILLING;
• THE FIREARMS INDUSTRY HAS SPECIFICALLY MARKETED ASSAULT WEAPONS AS TACTICAL, HYPER MASCULINE, AND MILITARY STYLE IN A MANNER THAT OVERTLY APPEALS TO THE VERY PEOPLE MOST LIKELY TO ACQUIRE SUCH WEAPONS AS A MEANS TO GAIN INFAMY AS A MASS SHOOTER;
• IT IS CRITICAL TO LIMIT THE PROSPECTIVE SALE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND ACCESSORIES, WHILE PERMITTING EXISTING LEGAL OWNERS TO RETAIN THE ASSAULT WEAPONS THEY CURRENTLY OWN
• BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS LEADS TO A DROP IN MASS SHOOTINGS AND GUN MASSACRES. IN THE TEN YEARS THAT ASSAULT5 WEAPONS WERE LIMITED BY A FEDERAL BAN, GUN MASSACRES DROPPED DRASTICALLY, BY AT LEAST THIRTY-SEVEN PERCENT.CONVERSELY, AFTER THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPON BAN EXPIRED IN 2004, GUN MASSACRES SKYROCKETED BY APPROXIMATELY ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT.
• FEDERAL PROHIBITIONS ARE NOT ALONE IN CURTAILING MASS SHOOTINGS. INDEED, STATE PROHIBITIONS OF ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH A LOWER LIKELIHOOD OF A MASS SHOOTING EVENT, LOWER LIKELIHOOD OF DEATH DUE TO A MASS SHOOTING EVENT, AND LOWER GUN DEATH RATES OVERALL
• THEREFORE, THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DETERMINES THAT A BAN ON KNOWINGLY MANUFACTURING, IMPORTING, PURCHASING, SELLING, OFFERING TO SELL, OR TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON, CAUSING THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORTATION, PURCHASE, SALE, OFFER TO SELL, OR TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF ASSAULT WEAPONS IN COLORADO IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS AND GUESTS OF OUR GREAT STATE

Most of it.
Before even bothering to find hard numbers to disprove those of these claims which do appeal to any numbers or statistics - most claims are unprovable and are basically just "feelings".

 

[Shodan]

Downplaying the loss of life to mass shootings is not a winning strategy, FYI.

Gun owners come across as callous and not respectful of human life.

So do surgeons and LEOs. Yet those are the people entrusted to take the greatest responsibility when it counts.

Coming from Los Angeles, with CA gun law doubled by local city and L.A. County law - several times a month I'd hear gunshots out of my bedroom window, and have heard a radio call for medivac from the Venice Pier of a person with a "gunshot wound to the chest". Now in Colorado where everyone's packing - I've yet to hear ONE shot like that. That's my argument that stringent gun laws actually INCREASE the loss of human life.

 

[Shodan]

I think the main problem here is that legislators and the younger American public at large - don't respect the U.S. Constitution to begin with. For them - the 2-nd Amendment IS the problem, they are trying to "solve".

Why? Because they didn't study history, and are oblivious to the fact that the United States is as prosperous as it is CRITICALLY because of it's Constitution and Bill or Rights. They grew up in a uni-polar world and don't comprehend how things can switch to be VERY, VERY different.

True, some crazies here and there are shooting innocent people every year. I'd also argue that the more citizens are packing the quicker such outliers would be put down or, better yet - discouraged from attempting such a stunt in the first place.
But - without the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - we'd get USSR-style GULAGs, or Chinese-style "social credit" systems and lockdown cities - IN A HEARTBEAT. These young, tech-savvy but history-ignorant people don't realize that. They just see artificially amplified social media posts about some crackpot shooter in some city and that's what they fixate on.

And I'm not some boomer btw. I'm 34 and I wasn't even born in this country, and since studied it's history in my spare time. Esp. since 2020 - when I was struck by what on f***ing Earth the officials are saying and doing.

 

[Maverick1]

Most of it.
Before even bothering to find hard numbers to disprove those of these claims which do appeal to any numbers or statistics - most claims are unprovable and are basically just "feelings".

Can you provide statistics, with sources, one way or another?

 

[SAJ-99]

This always rubs me as something you say when you can't make a strong argument for your case.

I'm not some gun-worshiping redneck, I'd be willing to be 'inconvenienced' a little more if it stopped innocent people from dying, but it won't, so I can't get behind this legislation. And come on, you KNOW it won't make a lick of difference.

I don’t have a case. That statement comes when the discussion makes no progress, which is pretty typical of these discussions.

I never said I supported this legislation. Most of it I think is useless. If you are being honest, I respect that. Start a new thread on how you are willing to be inconvenienced and listing those things that you are for. That will open up a discussion. I would be very curious on how that goes.

 

[LuketheDog]

I don’t have a case. That statement comes when the discussion makes no progress, which is pretty typical of these discussions.

I never said I supported this legislation. Most of it I think is useless. If you are being honest, I respect that. Start a new thread on how you are willing to be inconvenienced and listing those things that you are for. That will open up a discussion. I would be very curious on how that goes.

So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing then? That's why the discussion goes nowhere. To answer your question though, I'm already hugely inconvenienced by the rules in place, it's because I'm a rule-follower by nature, not a criminal. I have wait times for purchases, background checks for transfers and purchases (that I have to pay for), various concealed carry laws and regs, mandatory instruction for ccw permits, non-reciprocal state laws, gun storage laws, red flag laws (rarely used, definitely abused), $200 tax stamps and wait times for scary suppressors, assault weapon bans, background checks for ammo purchases in CA, etc. But, those don't matter because of two things: 1. people constantly forget that the rules don't apply to people who don't follow them, and 2. law enforcement is apparently either incapable of uninterested in effectively enforcing the rules, many recent shootings incidents have had huge breakdowns by the FBI and local LE previous to the incident. Yet our mental midget politicians still only think passing more laws for rule-followers to follow is the answer, not budgeting to enforce the laws we have already, or finding better ways to get in front of people with mental health issues, or keeping guns out of criminals' hands, they'll never learn. There isn't a single gang banger or meth head or lunatic grocery store shooter here in Denver who is concerned about the gun legislation they're discussing at the capital, not a single one...

The best suggestion I've heard lately is to add an automatic sentencing to anybody who uses a gun in a crime, that's means if you pull a gun, point a gun, fire a gun, it's 5 consecutive years in prison (heck, make it 10! I don't care!) on top of whatever else you're getting charged with. I think laws that get law-breakers' attention are what we need, and then I could go on following the rules that I'm already inconvenienced by and not worry about getting beaten over the head and lectured ad nauseam about how 'I could do more'.

 

[SAJ-99]

So you're just arguing for the sake of arguing then? That's why the discussion goes nowhere. To answer your question though, I'm already hugely inconvenienced by the rules in place, it's because I'm a rule-follower by nature, not a criminal. I have wait times for purchases, background checks for transfers and purchases (that I have to pay for), various concealed carry laws and regs, mandatory instruction for ccw permits, non-reciprocal state laws, gun storage laws, red flag laws (rarely used, definitely abused), $200 tax stamps and wait times for scary suppressors, assault weapon bans, background checks for ammo purchases in CA, etc. But, those don't matter because of two things: 1. people constantly forget that the rules don't apply to people who don't follow them, and 2. law enforcement is apparently either incapable of uninterested in effectively enforcing the rules, many recent shootings incidents have had huge breakdowns by the FBI and local LE previous to the incident. Yet our mental midget politicians still only think passing more laws for rule-followers to follow is the answer, not budgeting to enforce the laws we have already, or finding better ways to get in front of people with mental health issues, or keeping guns out of criminals' hands, they'll never learn. There isn't a single gang banger or meth head or lunatic grocery store shooter here in Denver who is concerned about the gun legislation they're discussing at the capital, not a single one...

The best suggestion I've heard lately is to add an automatic sentencing to anybody who uses a gun in a crime, that's means if you pull a gun, point a gun, fire a gun, it's 5 consecutive years in prison (heck, make it 10! I don't care!) on top of whatever else you're getting charged with. I think laws that get law-breakers' attention are what we need, and then I could go on following the rules that I'm already inconvenienced by and not worry about getting beaten over the head and lectured ad nauseam about how 'I could do more'.

I get the frustration, but it sounds like you just want to argue (which is why I tried to leave this thread a page ago, but apparently that irritated you ). There just haven’t been many suggestions for new ideas/laws that solve the problem. Your idea wants to view all the violence as coming from gang bangers and meth heads. It is way more complicated than that because most firearm deaths are suicide. Even with your idea we don’t have enough room in prisons and I guarantee people don’t want to be taxed to pay for your new idea.

These CO laws are just a rehash of the IL and WA laws. They are mostly stupid and a great example of tyranny of majority in these states, but blame SCOTUS. I hate the patchwork of state laws as much as anyone on this board, but that is the direction we are moving.

Like I said before, maybe that 3-day waiting period saved just one life. Hard to say because it can’t be measured directly. 2A advocates would be well served to acknowledge the scope of the problem and suggest some ideas of their own, while trying not to sound callous about loss of life. I’m not sure the problem can be fixed given the 300million guns floating around this country, at least not in the short term. But politicians have the job of trying, because a lot of the victims of gun violence have their rights violated too.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So, A Browning BAR would fit in these definitions if it had the BOSS system.

Seems like a really broad brush they're painting with.

They aren't worried about getting the "edges" right because they plan on coming for those as well. Beyond this particular bill, while I do think there is some room for improvement in making sure the wrong people don't get the wrong weapons, I don't believe there is any good fait intention in stopping there (where ever "there" is). The money and leadership behind this stuff see no place for any guns. Guns will always be scary and always be a threat and will always be sources for fear induced votes and $$$$. Buckle up - if the 2A crowd doesn't start winning hearts and minds in the suburbs - the 2A will die within 20 yrs. And hunting isn't the safe harbor for the coming generations it was with the older ones - as killing"sentient beings" of any species is equally wrong in the mind of the 51%+ voters under the age of 35. Gun owners and hunters have sucked as advocates for their passions - and the "cold dead hands" and "grip & grin/stack-em up" folks are not helping.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you own a firearm you have to have liability Insurance? How is that “shall not be infringed”?

I hate LI requirements because they will then be manipulated to make impossible to get just like they try to do with VISA limits. But they probably aren't viewed as prevent of ownership so likely pass muster if even a single SCOTUS member retires.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hey Ben, as someone who has used guns to defend this country and now works as a first responder to help save those who have been shot, which I have been on many of. Some of my good friends were at the Aurora Theatre shooting as police and fire. I am no stranger to the horrors of firearm violence. I am intimately knowledgeable. Maybe it does make me a little calloused. Every loss of life is a tragedy. That said I think we cannot use hyperbolic comparisons and gross overstatements to push agendas. Is gun violence an issue. Absolutely is it an epidemic or a pandemic. No. Now is type 2 diabetes an epidemic? Yes. Is distracted driving and epidemic? Yes. Is heart disease an epidemic? Yes. Call a spade a spade. Do not use emotion to pass something that does nothing to prevent the horrible tragedy of gun violence…

Debating politics with facts has proven a losing approach for as long as the right to vote has existed. 2A folks better look at the demographics and come up with something good or the 2A will die along with the 2 oldest SCOTUS members -- just like Roe

 

[VikingsGuy]

Coming next to CO... just introduced last night in CA. A little Valentine's Day F your freedom.

Bill Would Require Yearly Firearm Registration, Fines for Non-Compliance :: Guns.com

A California Democrat has filed legislation that would enact a mandatory annual gun census among the state's 13 million legal firearms owners.

www.guns.com

That one is super cynical - it requires registration but exempts database prohibited under Fed FOPA law but doesn't say how that is possible -- leaving a huge ambiguity as to what is or is not a felony in CA in the hopes of getting marginal gun owners to just quit.

These aren't meant to be good laws, they are meant to sow fear uncertainty and doubt in the minds of lawful gun owners about whether owning guns is worth it. Once the least committed surrender their guns, the number of folks who care shrink and the next wave of regulations is easier. The right executed a multi-pronged 40 year strategy to end Roe - the left is doing the same to end civilian 2A.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I wish at some point we would concern ourselves with the problem we have in this country with violence and leave the gun part out of it. Plenty of horrific stories of violence constantly in the news involving all sorts of weapons, we have issues way deeper than guns.

I agree, but then show me all the mental health support bills and poverty prevention bills offered by 2A supporting legislators. Over time, general society will do something to address gun violence. It will not just sit on its hands and lament moral decay. So if you are pro 2A you need to start thinking about being pro mental health programs and pro poverty fixes.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Of course they are are not well-rounded people, but I'm guessing that was rhetorical. I mostly worry that those that are not normal, well-rounded people can easily get a gun because lawful gun owners don't want to be inconvenienced.

I think some of the data is just noisy. Looking for a cause where there isn't one is pointless. But I do think mass shootings have increased due to some copycat trends. If a person wants to die in a society that values simply being famous...well, you can link the points. It's sad that we can't discuss ways to address the problem.

IMO - the increase in spectacular shootings is more a function with the galmorization of "Rambo" than with any feature of a modern rifle or pistol. We need to drop the fascination of military type activities by civilians. If you want to run around with body armor and a full auto weapon join the Army. We need to quit "playing army".