View Full Version : Caldera fires up a new facebook page to support moving the mag limit to 30
https://www.facebook.com/COhasyourback
Curiouser and curiouser.
I suspect Caldera is up to something...
BPTactical
04-22-2015, 19:13
Like trying to form an effective gun rights organization in Colorado?
We can only hope.
I suspect he's playing a medium-term game, and one that has "outgroup Dudley Brown" as step one.
I like the fact that he is nudging politicians to stop being afraid of DB. Too many are in Dudley's pocket and/or afraid of RMGO. Time to grow a pair and represent your constituents instead of backing everything RMGO tells you to back.
Like trying to form an effective gun rights organization in Colorado?
We can only hope.
I'm with you on this. I could get behind an effective gun rights org.
If it's yellow, let it mellow.
What if it's a chunky green?
And since the last thread related to this issue was locked, I would suggest we avoid the personal attacks on Mr. D. Brown.
We all have our opinions and for those who may be tempted to be less than civil toward a fellow member of the board, let this post serve as a warning.
Keep it civil please.
What if it's a chunky green?
See a doctor, stat.
buffalobo
04-22-2015, 20:08
What if it's a chunky green?
Pack it up and send to Washington DC, it will fit right in.
BPTactical
04-22-2015, 20:40
What if it's a chunky green?
Santiagos??
Santiagos??
And for those of you who haven't ordered the Extra Hot, it's awesome. I ate there for about 5 years before I realized they even had it.
How's that for staying on topic.
Ok. You can lock this thread, now. Was planning to stop at Santiagos Sat. on my way to the Tanner. No way I can now. Thanks for ruining it for me guys.
I'm not a Facebook guy, but I have an account just times like this. Believe it or not Facebook has the ears of the dummies. Big corps and government give them a ton of weight. I was like 236. That number needs to get a lot bigger.
Dang, I haven't had dinner yet and now I have a super craving for good Mexican. Sigh.
Really wish we could figure out how to unite the Colorado gun lobby. We're often our own worst nightmare, especially with something like this that wasn't even ever a real thing.
GilpinGuy
04-22-2015, 22:03
I seriously don't know, but I suspect there are far more "progressives" on facetard than Pro2A folks..
Great-Kazoo
04-22-2015, 22:17
And for those of you who haven't ordered the Extra Hot, it's awesome. I ate there for about 5 years before I realized they even had it.
How's that for staying on topic.
It was pretty tasty this afternoon.
Big John
04-24-2015, 17:35
I'll be as gentle as I can based on the given warning. I will happily support the dem's that do the right thing and cross the aisle to make 30 rounders legal again. Support meaning that if attacked by ANY organization for doing so, I'd happily stand up via any forum available to me to call BS. This is a compromise by the left. We do not have the votes for a repeal. Baby steps is better than no steps.
I had already formed an opinion before hearing an interview on this subject on the Mandy Connell show. My opinion was confirmed and is much stronger now that it was advocated that I break the law instead of siding with those whom are willing to compromise.
I'm with you on this, Big John.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
04-24-2015, 19:41
I don't get how chickenfugger passes a law without votes and gets mild displeasure and a reelection, then those trying to repeal it have to get votes and get laughed at when trying, and those refusing a middle ground "meet me halfway" approach get ostracized and blamed for us not getting our rights back. Our legal system and leadership need some serious scrutiny, and in my opinion no law affecting constitutional rights (would just say rights) should be able to go into effect without a citizen vote......not a ya/nay house vote. sorry, elected representation should not have a say over such serious issues nor should any singular douche bag, it's not something as minor as a 5 cent raise in levy or water tax and those are serious enough to warrant an individual vote regardless of representative opinion.
I'm with you on this, Big John.
Me too.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
04-24-2015, 19:46
I don't get how chickenfugger passes a law without votes and gets mild displeasure and a reelection, then those trying to repeal it have to get votes and get laughed at when trying, and those refusing a middle ground "meet me halfway" approach get ostracized and blamed for us not getting our rights back. Our legal system and leadership need some serious scrutiny, and in my opinion no law affecting constitutional rights (would just say rights) should be able to go into effect without a citizen vote......not a ya/nay house vote. sorry, elected representation should not have a say over such serious issues nor should any singular douche bag, it's not something as minor as a 5 cent raise in levy or water tax and those are serious enough to warrant an individual vote regardless of representative opinion.
(I want to edit this and say this post isn't meant as a personal attack on anyone here, it's just my opinion on the subject and has kind of been building as i watch these threads pop up. While RMGO may have a bad habit for spam email, so do many pol orgs....and while i dont agree with everything they do i have had no hesitation helping promote them in the past and i don't think they are the enemy here)
GunsRBadMMMMKay
04-24-2015, 19:48
that was wierd......i hit edit not quote lol
Big John
04-25-2015, 04:42
(I want to edit this and say this post isn't meant as a personal attack on anyone here, it's just my opinion on the subject and has kind of been building as i watch these threads pop up. While (edit) may have a bad habit for spam email, so do many pol orgs....and while i dont agree with everything they do i have had no hesitation helping promote them in the past and i don't think they are the enemy here)There is much more going on with local organizations than just spam. When you raise 16.1 million, accomplish not one thing, then advocate to break the law, I don't need to send you money nor support you to get where I am right now.
There has also been much question about where the money goes. The person in charge got indignant on and interview I heard when asked this question.
I don't want to act like a typical (R) and eat our own. But, I've heard enough with my own ears, coming straight from the horses mouth, to form and educated decision. That decision is that we are not getting "our" (so to speak I refused to donate to a fear based .org of any kind) 16.1+ worth of representation.
I'd like to respectfully ask that you refrain from using the names of said organization or any of it's people. This is very important and I would hate to see it deleted.
57544 (https://www.facebook.com/COhasyourback)
Singlestack
04-25-2015, 06:42
I don't get how chickenfugger passes a law without votes and gets mild displeasure and a reelection, then those trying to repeal it have to get votes and get laughed at when trying, and those refusing a middle ground "meet me halfway" approach get ostracized and blamed for us not getting our rights back.
I'm not understanding what you mean by "passes a law without votes"? The state legislature created various gun control bills and voted to pass some of those bills. They then went to the gov's desk and he signed them into law. If you mean votes of the populace, they were never placed on the ballot to vote on in a referendum. We are a representative republic and elect officials who make laws on our behalf. CO isn't what it was a generation ago, and the state isn't the reliable republican bastion is was back then.
There is much more going on with local organizations than just spam. When you raise 16.1 million, accomplish not one thing, then advocate to break the law, I don't need to send you money nor support you to get where I am right now.
[snip]
This is kind of where I am now too.
And I can't help but wonder how much of all of this is just job security. Not just local issues but national ones as well. Where is our ACA repeal? Well, if they repeal it, they can't run against it for the decade... It seems lots of folks on the right are content with watching the country go down in flames because of the opportunities the chaos will provide.
It's a dangerous game because it can embolden the enemy and wear down legitimate resistance.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
04-25-2015, 10:50
I'm not understanding what you mean by "passes a law without votes"? The state legislature created various gun control bills and voted to pass some of those bills. They then went to the gov's desk and he signed them into law. If you mean votes of the populace, they were never placed on the ballot to vote on in a referendum. We are a representative republic and elect officials who make laws on our behalf. CO isn't what it was a generation ago, and the state isn't the reliable republican bastion is was back then.
Yes I meant populace vote, and I understand we are supposedly "represented" by these people.....I just do not agree with alterations or restrictions of my rights being decided behind closed doors and then being told if i don't like it I'll have to get enough votes and support to change it. The greater burden should have been on those seeking to alter said rights not on those seeking to restore them.
GunsRBadMMMMKay
04-25-2015, 10:54
There is much more going on with local organizations than just spam. When you raise 16.1 million, accomplish not one thing, then advocate to break the law, I don't need to send you money nor support you to get where I am right now.
There has also been much question about where the money goes. The person in charge got indignant on and interview I heard when asked this question.
I don't want to act like a typical (R) and eat our own. But, I've heard enough with my own ears, coming straight from the horses mouth, to form and educated decision. That decision is that we are not getting "our" (so to speak I refused to donate to a fear based .org of any kind) 16.1+ worth of representation.
I'd like to respectfully ask that you refrain from using the names of said organization or any of it's people. This is very important and I would hate to see it deleted.
57544 (https://www.facebook.com/COhasyourback)
I hear you.
Honestly, I've wondered where a lot of money goes........seems like many orgs, groups, and governments collect way more then they pay out lol.
This isn't "baby steps". Accepting 30 rounds ENDS the matter forever, or at least, utill they reduce it in the future, and is "take two steps back, one step forward, two steps back"
You have 0.00% chance of repealing or challenging a 30 round magazine limitation. NONE. You don't have the motivation, you don't have the public support, you don't have the case law. What you do have is a bunch of selfish pricks that are thinking to themselves "yeah thers ban buh at leas' I guts muh magazines NOW!"
100% false. After standard cap mags are permitted, the volume on the entire issue could be lowered to such a level that it becomes less significant and gets past a session with little fanfare. It could be so uncontroversial that a Dem gov might even sign it (Hick has said 13-1224 was a mistake but will veto to keep the Libtard egg off his face).
Ohio is a great example...
http://dailyadvocate.com/news/home_top-news/152270844/New-Ohio-gun-laws-take-effect-March-23
As a result of the old law, many retailers, both in and out of state, refused to sell to Ohioans rifle and handgun magazines with a capacity of more than 30 rounds, thereby creating a de facto “ban” on these magazines, though the law did not clearly state that 30-plus-round magazines were banned.
The revised law reads “‘Automatic firearm’ means any firearm designed or specially adapted to fire a succession of cartridges with a single function of the trigger.” Thus, without mention of magazine capacity, for Ohioans there are no limits on how many cartridges a magazine may hold.
Ohio limit was (perceived to be) at 30, now there is none.
There are avenues that have not yet been taken in the federal courts to challenge and remove a 15 round magazine ban. Those avenues are not available with a 30 round ban (because 30 round magazines are what is in common use by the military....) Plus there is public support to repeal a 15 entirely. Not a 30. If we fail to kill it, we can always compromise later.
[snip]
Good! Let's pursue those as the same time and get Fed level protection. Where are people coming up with the idea that we can only do one thing at a time? And why do you think they are mutually exclusive things? If Colorado can't be a plaintiff, we have other states. I sent $100 to NYSRPA to help them out and would happily send more for fighting that fight.
Your analogy... Maybe I want the 30 minute hemorrhoid cure until I get the lifetime cure in 30 days. One doesn't preclude me from having the other. So why suffer even if relief only comes 30 minutes at a time until it taken care of?
Do the antis do this? Nope. They attack from all angles and take whatever victories they can... The cheaper, the better for them.
Look at the RoI on this and ask yourself why anyone would turn it down? It isn't costing us another wave of recalls and we don't even have to win both houses. We get to keep gun owners from being criminals for buying standard cap mags. We get to avoid the threat of eventual enforcement (seeing the same fear in CT and NY).
But the best part is that Dems in all other states are sent a message... This hill wasn't worth dying on. The deals made with Obama/Bloomturd didn't work out hence the compromise.
^ Adding to the above...
The other advantage is that anyone who passes on gets to leave his 30 rounders to family. Anyone who comes of age in the meantime gets to buy 30 rounders. We have loaded mags at events and can pass them to shooters on the line. I can leave a mag in my car and not make a criminal of anyone else who drives it. Etc, etc, etc...
That is huge. Not victory, but huge.
Ask me how I know this is a good thing? I turned 18 in 1996. :( Thankfully, we have Bert, who put the balls back on my poor Colt HBar. :)
ETA: MT6601 as a proper A2, because this is a gun board...
http://i803.photobucket.com/albums/yy316/skip237/ColtAR15MT6601_4_zpsa8540adb.jpg
Big John
04-26-2015, 04:48
This isn't "baby steps". Accepting 30 rounds ENDS the matter forever, or at least, utill they reduce it in the future, and is "take two steps back, one step forward, two steps back"
You have 0.00% chance of repealing or challenging a 30 round magazine limitation. NONE. You don't have the motivation, you don't have the public support, you don't have the case law. What you do have is a bunch of selfish pricks that are thinking to themselves "yeah thers ban buh at leas' I guts muh magazines NOW!"Name calling and insults. Awesome. I am neither selfish, nor Bubba. That's all I got to say about that in respect for the life of this thread.
100% false. After standard cap mags are permitted, the volume on the entire issue could be lowered to such a level that it becomes less significant and gets past a session with little fanfare. It could be so uncontroversial that a Dem gov might even sign it (Hick has said 13-1224 was a mistake but will veto to keep the Libtard egg off his face).
Ohio is a great example...
http://dailyadvocate.com/news/home_top-news/152270844/New-Ohio-gun-laws-take-effect-March-23
Ohio limit was (perceived to be) at 30, now there is none.
Good! Let's pursue those as the same time and get Fed level protection. Where are people coming up with the idea that we can only do one thing at a time? And why do you think they are mutually exclusive things? If Colorado can't be a plaintiff, we have other states. I sent $100 to NYSRPA to help them out and would happily send more for fighting that fight.
Your analogy... Maybe I want the 30 minute hemorrhoid cure until I get the lifetime cure in 30 days. One doesn't preclude me from having the other. So why suffer even if relief only comes 30 minutes at a time until it taken care of?
Do the antis do this? Nope. They attack from all angles and take whatever victories they can... The cheaper, the better for them.
Look at the RoI on this and ask yourself why anyone would turn it down? It isn't costing us another wave of recalls and we don't even have to win both houses. We get to keep gun owners from being criminals for buying standard cap mags. We get to avoid the threat of eventual enforcement (seeing the same fear in CT and NY).
But the best part is that Dems in all other states are sent a message... This hill wasn't worth dying on. The deals made with Obama/Bloomturd didn't work out hence the compromise.Thank you so much for posting my reply better than I could have done myself.
A compromise taking away a right is never, ever acceptable. A compromise as a step towards restoring a right though undesirable, is acceptable.
Simple as that. Please note the "step towards" implies it's not over and done with. As Ohio proved despite the doom and gloom predictions to the contrary.
O2
Nothing new here. Some believe in never compromising. Some believe steps can be taken to get closer to the goal. Each side can show good/bad examples to prove they are "right".
So we fight with each other, and the other guys laugh at us. I guess it's human nature. I just like it better when it's the "other guys" who are having this problem, instead of us. :)
http://i.imgur.com/VeGN6xR.jpg
This isn't "baby steps". Accepting 30 rounds ENDS the matter forever, or at least, utill they reduce it in the future, and is "take two steps back, one step forward, two steps back"
You have 0.00% chance of repealing or challenging a 30 round magazine limitation. NONE. You don't have the motivation, you don't have the public support, you don't have the case law. What you do have is a bunch of selfish pricks that are thinking to themselves "yeah thers ban buh at leas' I guts muh magazines NOW!"
Didn't Sen Holbert state otherwise on that exact issue (before the crash of 2015)? You keep asserting that there is no chance of a repeal if there is a compromise however where is anything to support that? It sounds like an idea you're holding onto but can't actually prove.
A compromise taking away a right is never, ever acceptable. A compromise as a step towards restoring a right though undesirable, is acceptable.
Simple as that. Please note the "step towards" implies it's not over and done with. As Ohio proved despite the doom and gloom predictions to the contrary.
O2
Well said.
spqrzilla
04-26-2015, 21:38
Its extraordinary how many people have no concept of what is and what is not politically possible. Meanwhile, RMGO's despicable tactics of fostering hatred among our side to increase fund raising to our detriment have been successful as evidenced by this thread.
To reiterate to everyone what has been said ad naseum on here in other topics "If you go all or nothing, you usually end up with nothing." I don't mean offense by this, but I must ask, is Mr. Holbert one of those in RMGO's pocket? How much campaign funds did they give him that he is aligning his opinion with RMGO? And finally, if the majority of constituents want the limit upped to 30-rounds, would that prompt a legislator to vote in favor of such a measure? Again, not implying, insinuating or intention of offense, just genuine questions.
[snip]
Thank you so much for posting my reply better than I could have done myself.
Sorry... Wanted to get those ideas out as I've been having this conversation with multiple people. The RMGO talking points present this as a boolean choice; repeal or ban forever.
---
Its extraordinary how many people have no concept of what is and what is not politically possible. Meanwhile, RMGO's despicable tactics of fostering hatred among our side to increase fund raising to our detriment have been successful as evidenced by this thread.
I don't see much hate between us "little people" but I do see what RMGO has done and am questioning if I want to continue to be a member or not. We've given Brown a substantial war chest that he has used to attack allies and friends.
This is an important issue and we should be able to discuss strategy without the negativity. I can see why people would be upset, but we are not discussing a surrender here. The folks on both sides are good people that want good things. (By folks, I mean us little people ;) )
Big John
04-27-2015, 17:03
Sorry... Wanted to get those ideas out as I've been having this conversation with multiple people. The RMGO talking points present this as a boolean choice; repeal or ban forever.
No need to be sorry. It was a sincere thank you.
Sorry... Wanted to get those ideas out as I've been having this conversation with multiple people. The RMGO talking points present this as a boolean choice; repeal or ban forever.
I don't see much hate between us "little people" but I do see what RMGO has done and am questioning if I want to continue to be a member or not. We've given Brown a substantial war chest that he has used to attack allies and friends.
This is an important issue and we should be able to discuss strategy without the negativity. I can see why people would be upset, but we are not discussing a surrender here. The folks on both sides are good people that want good things. (By folks, I mean us little people ;) )
Well said. I gave up all support for RMGO when he attempted to get his membership to abandon the NRA and go all in with him. I disagree with that tactic and find it counter-productive to moving forward with the fight to keep the 2A alive in this country. If RMGO and NRA were to fight united instead of divided then we might actually make some headway.
Too bad this is on Facebook. I will not swim in that cesspool.
Too bad this is on Facebook. I will not swim in that cesspool.
Same here.
No need to be sorry. It was a sincere thank you.
[Beer]
Too bad this is on Facebook. I will not swim in that cesspool.
You need a "stalker" account. FB really doesn't give a shit as long as you make it look somewhat personal.
I may, or may not, have one. ;)
battle_sight_zero
04-28-2015, 21:42
I am am one those duh I want my 16, 20, and 30 round mags now guys. If we can get something now it will help for the future. However I am not holding my breath for any changes towards the positive in Colorado, the marijuana migration is in full swing right now. Not to mention all the California folks moving here that bring their utopian dreams here. People are not being priced out homes and real estate in Colorado by gun loving conservatives, nope were seeing the liberal money people moving here. If you want something you better get it while you can, face it the deck is being stacked against us in demographics in Colorado . RMGO will be irrelevant in Colorado because of those demographics very soon. RMGO will be the Rocky Mountain Growers Organization. I say get what we can and fight on.
Been gone for awhile (down in TX working on a case).
Ohio had a statutory provision defining a +30 rounder as an automatic weapon (and thus under NFA). The pro-firearm legislature/governor corrected that just by simply correction to statutory definition. They didn't actually have a magazine ban. Legally, your example has 0% relevance to the situation in our state. Our blue state cannot just correct a minor statutory definition. We have a physical magazine ban. You think anti-firearm types are going to ignore your desire to repeal a 30 round ban here? LOL. Especially when Colorado is their "test" state? RIGHT. They're TOTALLY going to give up and go home. [Sarcasm2] On the other hand, you will have almost no motivation or support from pro-firearm types (who already have their 30 round candy and are complacent). In fact, many pro-firearm types will surprisingly support a 30 round ban. Just as you have a lot of FUDDS that would support an "assault weapon ban". They don't hunt with it, it doesn't affect them, so they don't want you having it.
I'm overtaxed right now but clearing out several cases this year. I DID plan on a federal challenge to that in a couple years. I'll go ahead and retract that. Residents here are apparently very complacent. Enjoy your magazine ban. It's good for life. Why waste more of my life on a case like that?
I have more than 100+ 30's boxed up on July 1, 2013 that I could sell after "compromise". It profits me. But I wanted to preserve the legal challenge. If we have a 30 round ban, the attack even if made in another State (which I cannot do) will have no effect on our ban here, because we have a 30 round ban (30+ is arguably not in common use by the military/populace). It seems residents believe that these problems just resolve themselves magically. Good luck with that.
How would your challenge be different from the Independence/Sheriffs lawsuit in federal court? I might just not understand enough to know, but I thought that opinion covered the mag ban and upheld it.
And if there is a different strategy, why would you wait years for a federal challenge? Why not do that now and partner with people who are willing to support and fund it? If complacency is the enemy in a compromise, isn't waiting for years for this to be even more accepted also dangerous? We're coming up on year #2 as it is.
SAF also challenged in NY...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act#Legal_challenges
On December 31, 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Skretny), of the Federal District Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_District_Court) in Buffalo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo,_New_York), upheld most of the New York SAFE Act, saying that its provisions "further the state's important interest in public safety.... it does not totally disarm New York's citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their right to self-defense".[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act#cite_note-NYTimes10Rounds-9) However he struck down the provision that only seven rounds of ammunition could be loaded into a ten-round magazine, calling it "an arbitrary restriction" that violated the Second Amendment, and saying that it could result in "pitting the criminal with a fully-loaded magazine against the law-abiding citizen limited to seven rounds."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act#cite_note-NYTimes10Rounds-9)
I find this part to be interesting because while the judge said it was arbitrary, he left the arbitrary 10 round limit in place. And the opinion uses language, that to me, creates new tests on what the right is using words like "totally" and "meaningfully." So there is federal district precedent that a line exists with respect to capacity. Gottlieb even invoked the "common use" Miller argument and it seems to have been ignored.
This precedent applies to us too, right? Unless it is overturned, right? But then we go back to that 2013 decision.
I would still support a legal action using any strategy folks think have potential and would put money where my mouth is (compromise or not). I don't think there should be a line. But everything I am reading to include Scalia's (a Conservative!?!) comments says there are limits on a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
If a legal action succeeds in moving that line, but not eliminating it, wouldn't we just be in the spot with a compromise?
I really appreciate your response and taking the time to explain that to me!
If we are in a position to need and be able to receive funding I hope you (or anyone else here) spreads the word.
With a case being that delicate... Is RMGO the right partner/leadership to take that on? (After I typed that I realized it might not be appropriate to answer that, but I'm leaving it out there).
I really think a lot of people aren't liking Brown's tactics and there might be a vacuum. Saying something is on the horizon and funded, even if a year or two out, would give folks some comfort. I don't see that kind of leadership coming from RMGO... Just a red line with no strategy.
If the compromise jeopardizes our standing, that needs to articulated and communicated. All I've heard (except from you) is "[B]NO!" with the primary concern being complacency and future lack of political will. That can be a double-edge sword because folks can get tired of hearing about the issue with no results.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-03-2015, 00:52
I think we need to learn from the Progressives on the left. They take small legislative wins and press on. A court case here and a court case there. Pretty soon we have the Army talking about how deal with tranny soldiers.
Learn from that.
Conservatives look at the logic of their argument and think they should win. The go for all or nothing legislative wins and will only back the purest of pure candidates- and it has gotten us a generation of loses in elections, which leads to legislation that we don't like and judges we can't stand- but are there for life.
Perfect is the mortal enemy of good enough for now- to paraphrase a Soviet General.
Get a win and the next day start again on the next step. Walter Payton football- three yards, three yards, three yards.
This isn't a movie where some mystical speech changes everyones mind and all of a sudden we get everything we want. You grind it out.
The left knows this and they use it against us. They split us and make us weaker. Now we are getting screwed from the left and from the RMGO. I'd say the 'right', but I don't know where he actually falls in the political spectrum.
I still believe that a 30 round compromise destroys any future "common use" argument and that this issue will die the day the 30 round compromise goes into effect. We will get our 30 round mags and nothing else. Before that happens I would at least like to exhaust all other avenues.
Death by a thousand paper cuts in reverse does not work with this particular issue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.