View Full Version : SB18-052 - Repeal Ammunition Magazine Prohibition
newracer
01-11-2018, 18:29
Senator Owen Hill, and Representatives Lori Saine and Stephen Humphrey introduced Senate Bill 52, legislation that seeks to repeal the 2013 law that limited the amount of ammunition a firearm magazine can hold.
Senate Bill 52 would remove this restriction so that law-abiding Coloradans are not limited in their ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-052
https://act.nraila.org/takeaction.aspx?AlertID=1836
wctriumph
01-11-2018, 19:05
I have emailed and phoned my representatives asking them to support this important legislation.
JohnnyDrama
01-11-2018, 23:29
Thanks for the heads up.
Great-Kazoo
01-11-2018, 23:35
It may go good, until brown sticks his nose in to it. With Hick as the last word, i would not be too hopeful.
The left is good at wordsmithing, something our side lacks.
We need something catchy, like "Stop rationaing self-defense" or similar.
O2
"Keep Industry In Denver", aka the KID bill. Why do Democrats hate kids?
The left is good at wordsmithing, something our side lacks.
We need something catchy, like "Stop rationaing self-defense" or similar.
O2
Disabled Persons Protection Act
The argument (a good one IMHO) was made that a disabled person cannot change mags quickly/efficiently and was disproportionately impacted by the mag ban.
I hope it passes. I couldn't get a magazine for a 100 year old rifle because it was 25 rounds. Its total bullshit.
BPTactical
01-12-2018, 12:35
With the recent death of a DougCo Sheriff and over 100 rounds fired during the incident I dont see a repeal happening
What if DougCO Sheriff Dept and other Sheriffs give support for repeal?
Will1776
01-12-2018, 12:42
Thanks for posting. Hopefully it passes. Didn't Hick say he regretted saying the bill to CO sheriffs? I think there's a fair chance he'd sign
Like a snowflake's chance in a blast furnace. The Dems will NEVER allow this to Hick's desk.
Edit: Assigned to State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. Committee is 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans. It'll be killed without ever getting to the floor.
Like a snowflake's chance in a blast furnace. The Dems will NEVER allow this to Hick's desk.
Edit: Assigned to State, Veterans, and Military Affairs. Committee is 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans. It'll be killed without ever getting to the floor.
This is my thought. Sad, but this is the new norm for CO.
Zundfolge
01-12-2018, 13:22
Snowball's chance, but at least our side is keeping the fight alive.
Keeping "Hope alive" is what the liberals did for Hillary. But I don't think she likes being called Hope.
Great-Kazoo
01-12-2018, 13:39
With the recent death of a DougCo Sheriff and over 100 rounds fired during the incident I dont see a repeal happening
Exactly
What if DougCO denver and boulder Sheriff Dept give support for repeal?
[ROFL3]Don't forget the Chief of Police, who are usually anti-gun, in most cities are left of center and political appointees. They may appear to have been selected as the best for the job, realistically they're puppets of the city council. They are the ones media sound bites for support of an agenda.
Thanks for posting. Hopefully it passes. Didn't Hick say he regretted saying the bill to CO sheriffs? I think there's a fair chance he'd sign
Don't hold your breath
IMO, Hick is slated to be nominated as the next VP candidate .
For those who haven't caught on yet.
The only thing a politician changes is their standing within the party. If their mouth is moving they're lying or pandering to the lowest common (insert ism or ist group) denominator
I did not state what you quoted. As I recall, all but 2 or 3 Sheriffs were against the original "law".
Great-Kazoo
01-12-2018, 15:49
I did not state what you quoted. As I recall, all but 2 or 3 Sheriffs were against the original "law".
No you didn't, i changed it ( as others do when using a quote) to specific sheriffs. Since you took umbrage i should have included a FIFY in my post, my bad..
Either way there's no way we will see a repeal of any gun laws enacted in the last 15 years. From gun show BGC to something as minimal as magazine capacity . If anything expect to see more restrictions, within Home Rule cities & towns or statewide.
It will be passed or bypassed.
Great-Kazoo
01-12-2018, 16:42
It will be passed or bypassed.
Not even taken up. Or will it go any further when you have a hysterical mentality such as the DPEB has, time & time again.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/12/its-our-duty-to-learn-from-the-death-of-deputy-zackari-parrish/
Deputy-recorded videos of the night Matthew Riehl killed one person and injured six others using military-style assault rifles to fire through the door and walls
Beyond that, the firepower Riehl possessed was excessive for anyone. The M16 and M4 rifles were likely semiautomatic versions of the fully automatic guns used by the U.S. military. They are rifles designed not for hunting or sport shooting but for combat. The semiautomatic rifles are capable of rapidly firing high-caliber rounds from large magazines with little recoil. While we are skeptical that reinstating the assault weapon ban would be upheld by the Supreme Court, clearly there are dire consequences to allowing these weapons to be bought and sold on the mass market.
I guess it would have been better if he was pushed out a window. The gun had nothing to do with it. And a semiauto version of a full auto is still a full auto or machine gun. If I have read the laws about parts kit works. Otherwise it was guy with a gun that misused them to kill cops and is a shill of the gun control lobby. But what I was saying is mag bans will be bypassed because its as fucking stupid at the fireworks ban.
I guess it would have been better if he was pushed out a window. The gun had nothing to do with it. And a semiauto version of a full auto is still a full auto or machine gun. If I have read the laws about parts kit works. Otherwise it was guy with a gun that misused them to kill cops and is a shill of the gun control lobby. But what I was saying is mag bans will be bypassed because its as fucking stupid at the fireworks ban.
Fireworks bans get WAY more enforcement.
Fireworks bans get WAY more enforcement.
No it doesn't. Not on the east side.
Fireworks bans get WAY more enforcement.
I bet if I spent all of June and half of July throwing my standard capacity mags onto my neighbors' roofs, the enforcement may be a bit more strict. ;)
He may sign. Or shall sign. All we have to do is get a paper to his desk. Only then will I know for sure that that stiff backside is Blooburgs hand or the collective boot of the people.
However, all we have to do is get it to him on a booze cheat day. Like a day that Obama comes by.
Until the R's take the Gov spot and both houses . . . it's not happening. And that's not likely to happen either, so . . . there we are.
hurley842002
01-12-2018, 22:15
Until the R's take the Gov spot and both houses . . . it's not happening. And that's not likely to happen either, so . . . there we are.Pretty much.
So negative. If we ever get it out of the orgy of the kill committee. I would consider that the a pretty good win.
Great-Kazoo
01-12-2018, 23:34
So negative. If we ever get it out of the orgy of the kill committee. I would consider that the a pretty good win.
You'll see the easter bunny before you'll see any positive gun bills out of committee and or ever reach the .gov's desk.
Zundfolge
01-12-2018, 23:35
Until the R's take the Gov spot and both houses . . . it's not happening. And that's not likely to happen either, so . . . there we are.
We have a better chance of either getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot or letting the courts kill it ... and both of those are very slim.
We should get a amendment on the ballot that everyone has to show their ID to vote and mail in ballots have to be applied for when you renew your license or ID. And once the biggest non turn out for Dems happens we will have the state back and keep it.
https://i.imgur.com/q7JUiSM.png
Imagine going to Lowe's. You need a light bulb. You walk in and explain to an employee you need a light bulb. You walk out, under duress, with a "smart fridge" on your receipt. It's delivered to the home of the employee. You still don't have a light bulb. They go full autistic screeching when you call foul to their manager. He informs you that you just need to shop somewhere else. There is nowhere else. That's not customer service. That's essentially an oligarchy with minion slaves. The magazine thing is but a symptom of a larger problem. Fairly sure the Founding Fathers went John Wick over less.
The question is: Was Bill Hicks a prophet?
[snip]
That's essentially an oligarchy with minion slaves. The magazine thing is but a symptom of a larger problem. Fairly sure the Founding Fathers went John Wick over less.
The question is: Was Bill Hicks a prophet?
+1,000
Government is incorporated against the People who have no agency.
Needs reset.
But there's Donkey Show on tomorrow, a car payment to be made, and a 401k that isn't going to fund itself with Federal Reserve Notes.
We can liberate goods after the reset.
While I know all the above comments are in jest, lets avoid those kind of discussions please. I'd hate to be on some kind of no-drive list. (once they ban driving and we're all stuck with automated spies, err... I mean cars)
[LOL]
A "reset" can mean a return to the Constitution and the government we are promised.
KevDen2005
01-13-2018, 19:05
What if DougCO Sheriff Dept and other Sheriffs give support for repeal?
Then the politicians will do what "is best" for us anyway!
You'll see the easter bunny before you'll see any positive gun bills out of committee and or ever reach the .gov's desk.
I somehow cannot begin to vote ANY tax increase what so ever until I can buy real magazines again.
Here is an idea...
If the state wants to make money, why not charge a "service fee" of say $5 to any magazine over 15 rounds? I know its extortion, but give the dems something they want (money to spend) and give us something?
We need to get creative.
Hopefully some of our Rep elected officials can make some deals to get this passed. I mean I am sure there are some things Dems want to get through the State Senate. Hold their crap hostage unless they give us some of what we want. It is called "compromise". They want something, they need to give something.
Or maybe...
Baby steps.
Introduce a bill that allows CCW holders to purchase magazines greater than 15. Why would it at all be necessary to prevent law abiding citizens, who have had a background check performed, and are known to their sheriff from having these?
Little Dutch
01-15-2018, 15:56
Because gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
Fairly pessimistic, I know. But when Hick was reelected I lost hope on CO guns rights. The voters, apparently, don't care. Therefore neither do the reps.
Ursa Rex
01-15-2018, 17:05
I sent a message to my state rep last time this came up along with a couple of links to studies stating magazine bans were ineffective at regulating crime or violence. He responded with "There's a chance the bans could do something, so I will not vote to repeal." Nice to know my representative represents me. Oh, and he also signed me up for my local democratic mailing list.
Ursa Rex
01-15-2018, 17:07
Issue is then we're compromising on a constitutional right, and letting them know we're willing to play their games. In the short run it might be good for us CCW holders, but we run the risk of never getting our other rights back because, "well, we compromised on this one thing this one time, so how about you compromise (over and over again) and give us this portion of your rights in return?" We need to take the whole thing back, otherwise we put ourselves in a disadvantageous bargaining position.
We need to take the whole thing back, otherwise we put ourselves in a disadvantageous bargaining position.
I'm curious to know how you think we have leverage in the current situation.
Ursa Rex
01-15-2018, 19:44
Even if we don't have much leverage now it does not make sense to surrender what little leverage we have now.
Zundfolge
01-15-2018, 20:11
I'm curious to know how you think we have leverage in the current situation.
We must have some or they'd have surpassed California and New York by now.
Do we have any dirt on these people? Can we investigate them and get pictures of them doing what Dems do best. (e.g. Drugs, Hookers, Bribes and murder) I am only saying its happened before.
We must have some or they'd have surpassed California and New York by now.
CA & NY never pushed back as hard as CO did . . . they weren't expecting the blowback. I think they will be content to leave well enough alone (in their minds, anyway) for awhile. But, that said . . . they got what they wanted in the end. At least we gave them serious food for thought as to whether they want to try for more.
I would love to see the R's take control of the legislature and win the Gov seat and repeal all that bs. I just think CO is too far gone. We may keep it from getting much worse for awhile, but I don't think the odds are good that we ever get the mag ban repealed. Wish that were not the case, but I think that's the way it is realisticallly. Not that I'll stop fighting my arse off for it.
KevDen2005
01-15-2018, 23:50
Here is an idea...
If the state wants to make money, why not charge a "service fee" of say $5 to any magazine over 15 rounds? I know its extortion, but give the dems something they want (money to spend) and give us something?
We need to get creative.
Hopefully some of our Rep elected officials can make some deals to get this passed. I mean I am sure there are some things Dems want to get through the State Senate. Hold their crap hostage unless they give us some of what we want. It is called "compromise". They want something, they need to give something.
I see your point but people should not have to pay a tax on their right. In fact I believe it's unconstitutional, not that anyone with power cares.
Great-Kazoo
01-16-2018, 00:54
Here is an idea...
If the state wants to make money, why not charge a "service fee" of say $5 to any magazine over 15 rounds? I know its extortion, but give the dems something they want (money to spend) and give us something?
We need to get creative.
Hopefully some of our Rep elected officials can make some deals to get this passed. I mean I am sure there are some things Dems want to get through the State Senate. Hold their crap hostage unless they give us some of what we want. It is called "compromise". They want something, they need to give something.
Hey, why not propose a tax on ammo, say $1 per round. Get creative with your own money, not mine.[facepalm]
If we get any slightly progun guy in the office. I think we have a chance to repeal the bad laws. Can you just imagine what the news would say? They never have to report about someone getting their rights back. Its always how much worse its going to be.
I would love to see the R's take control of the legislature and win the Gov seat and repeal all that bs. I just think CO is too far gone. We may keep it from getting much worse for awhile, but I don't think the odds are good that we ever get the mag ban repealed. Wish that were not the case, but I think that's the way it is realisticallly. Not that I'll stop fighting my arse off for it.
That pretty much sums up my position.
Do we have any dirt on these people? Can we investigate them and get pictures of them doing what Dems do best. (e.g. Drugs, Hookers, Bribes and murder) I am only saying its happened before.
You're right but Dims don't care. Dim voters have been conditioned to care about other things.
Recall Mayor Handcock hiring an attorney to confirm DPD didn't have him on surveillance in front of a local whorehouse? Recall local media dropping the story?
The key really is demographics and I have to say this is not all bad news if open borders immigration can be halted. Gen Z is turning out to be the most Conservative and pro-gun generation we've seen in my lifetime. It will come down to if Dims are successful in replacing those voters which is why DACA is so important right now, why immigration is a racial issue to them (it means ending whiteness to them so resisting that is inherently racist), and why Trump won.
Put yourself in the shoes of a 20-something who wants a decent life and look at the landscape collectivists have created: impossible healthcare costs, broke social programs, high cost of living, and identity politics that marginalize you for wanting to keep a paycheck to support yourself. Not even talking about having a family...
Hell, Dims just went on record saying workers keeping more of their paychecks under the new tax cut is racist and will lead to Armageddon. They don't care about that those voters because they think they can replace us.
Issue is then we're compromising on a constitutional right, and letting them know we're willing to play their games. In the short run it might be good for us CCW holders, but we run the risk of never getting our other rights back because, "well, we compromised on this one thing this one time, so how about you compromise (over and over again) and give us this portion of your rights in return?" We need to take the whole thing back, otherwise we put ourselves in a disadvantageous bargaining position.
How well has refusing a compromise worked for us?
Right now we can refuse to compromise, and we dont get mags.
Learn from the left. They know they want to get from point A to Z. They learn they cannot do it in one step. They will have 26 small steps in between.
There was one point when the dems had the house by one vote, that we could have likely gotten 30 rounds through as the limit....but we refused to compromise.
Sometimes losing less is the better strategy...
CA & NY never pushed back as hard as CO did . . . they weren't expecting the blowback. I think they will be content to leave well enough alone (in their minds, anyway) for awhile. But, that said . . . they got what they wanted in the end. At least we gave them serious food for thought as to whether they want to try for more.
I would love to see the R's take control of the legislature and win the Gov seat and repeal all that bs. I just think CO is too far gone. We may keep it from getting much worse for awhile, but I don't think the odds are good that we ever get the mag ban repealed. Wish that were not the case, but I think that's the way it is realisticallly. Not that I'll stop fighting my arse off for it.
No they wont.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-051
Under current law, possession of a dangerous weapon is a class 5 felony for a first offense and a class 4 felony for each subsequent offense. The bill amends the definition of 'dangerous weapon' to include a 'multi-burst trigger activator', which the bill defines as:
A device that attaches to a semiautomatic firearm and allows the firearm to discharge 2 or more shots in a burst when the device is activated; or
A manual or power-driven trigger-activating device that, when attached to a semiautomatic firearm, increases the rate of fire of that firearm.
The bill also provides that a person who sells a multi-burst trigger activator to another person, or who purchases a multi-burst trigger activator from another person, commits a class 5 felony; except that each subsequent violation by the same person is a class 4 felony.
They are trying for more. It doesnt seem they are that worried.
And the DEMS have increased seats in the house.
DEMS: 37 REPS: 28
REPS have lost seats since the "revolt" over gun bills.
I see your point but people should not have to pay a tax on their right. In fact I believe it's unconstitutional, not that anyone with power cares.
I already have to pay a "fee" to get a background check.
I already have to pay a tax for an NFA item.
I already have to pay for a CCW permit.
I already have to pay an excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
Hey, why not propose a tax on ammo, say $1 per round. Get creative with your own money, not mine.[facepalm]
No, I want something that is now allowed right now. Just like MJ was.
Ammo is already allowed. I am not talking about taxing that.
What can you propose that could possibly make 4 or 5 DEM house members turn?
The only thing I think that motivates them is more taxes. And control. But they will give some control for more taxes.
I am open to anything that might work. What are you suggestions to get 5 DEMS to go for getting rid of the mag ban?
I already have to pay a "fee" to get a background check.
I already have to pay a tax for an NFA item.
I already have to pay for a CCW permit.
I already have to pay an excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
So why willingly pay more?
If we get any slightly progun guy in the office. I think we have a chance to repeal the bad laws. Can you just imagine what the news would say? They never have to report about someone getting their rights back. Its always how much worse its going to be.
You have Denver and Boulder.
The only hope we have is to get a REP that appeals to the suburban women. That is where the swing vote is for governor.
And most suburban women dont really have "gun rights" high on their list.
My personal opinion is the REPS have the best chance putting a woman up at the moment.
So why willingly pay more?
Because right now I cannot buy standard cap magazine. So, if I had to pay somewhat more than not getting it at all, I would rather that.
Its not that I want to pay more. Its a game of "would I rather".
I would rather pay a whole lot less in taxes in general. But at least if I have to pay them, maybe I can get a little satisfaction...
Put yourself in the shoes of a 20-something who wants a decent life and look at the landscape collectivists have created: impossible healthcare costs, broke social programs, high cost of living, and identity politics that marginalize you for wanting to keep a paycheck to support yourself. Not even talking about having a family...
us.
Most of them I talk to (have some work for me) dont blame the collectivism.
They cannot separate the "social injustice" and "income inequality" from taxes.
They think they should pay less (no matter what they make) and other should pay more.
The simple version of most peoples vision of taxes is:
Anyone who makes less than me is a lazy bum who doesnt pay their fair share; anyone who makes more than me is a greedy bastard that doesnt pay their fair share"
Because right now I cannot buy standard cap magazine. So, if I had to pay somewhat more than not getting it at all, I would rather that.
Its not that I want to pay more. Its a game of "would I rather".
I would rather pay a whole lot less in taxes in general. But at least if I have to pay them, maybe I can get a little satisfaction...
And how much does that increase next year, and the next, and the next...
And what is the next "Oh, don't worry, they'll gladly pay to have it" item for them to tax/fee/regulate your rights with?
And how much does that increase next year, and the next, and the next...
And what is the next "Oh, don't worry, they'll gladly pay to have it" item for them to tax/fee/regulate your rights with?
Probably the same as the "bridge fee" on motor vehicle registration.
I dont even really property rights. If I dont pay taxes on the property...just see how fast it is seized.
I am so screwed by taxes, a little more a little less make no difference.
And how much does that increase next year, and the next, and the next...
And what is the next "Oh, don't worry, they'll gladly pay to have it" item for them to tax/fee/regulate your rights with?
Get creative.
What can you offer DEMS that they would trade to get rid of the mag ban?
They wont sign on out of the goodness of their hearts. So its make some sort of deal.
Let keep in mind....
The bumpstock bill...
Michael Merrifield..
DEM... El Paso county
When El Paso county is pushing gun parts bans and has no fear of repercussions (voters) we are in trouble.
Great-Kazoo
01-16-2018, 19:38
Get creative.
What can you offer DEMS that they would trade to get rid of the mag ban? NOT 1 FUKIN THING, NOTHING, NADA ZIP, ZILCH, BIG FAT GOOSE EGG
They wont sign on out of the goodness of their hearts. So its make some sort of deal.
Curious, are you an actual gun owner? If you are one, why did you not buy greater than 15 round mags before the law took effect?
From your post sounds more like one of those common sense hunters and sportsman i've encountered before. Lets make nice so we can beg for our Constitutional RIGHTS.
Why do "we have to compromise" ??
Not sure what age bracket you're in, however i've seen compromise since 86. Oddest thing........... NEVER has the other side compromised on any gun law, Ever. Only thing i've seen.... Is MORE Laws, More restrictions, More road blocks for gun owners.
So yeah lets compromise and have more rights taken away.
I will give up abortion for gun rights that are not infringed in anyway. Will need a house with more bedrooms but it will be a small price to pay. Not that I supported those decisions in anyway to begin with.
How about we actually use that "Road & Bridge fee" to actually fix roads and bridges. And that hasn't gone up since it's inception. $25 @$$ r@pe since it started. "It's not a tax, it's a FEE"
Have you read the itemization of your registration fee? Or don't you own a vehicle?
Your logic is flawed, in the least, and selfish, at the worst.
Good luck.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
My registration fees were $130 if I sent it in by mail. And when I went in because I waited too long they added another $10 for diesel fuel it uses. Now, its $140 a year plus $45 emission test every year. Its still a 22 year old truck getting better mileage then most other trucks out there. I suppose I could just walk everywhere. But if I choose not to I will have to pay through the nose for the privilege to drive. SMH.
'92 standard cab 1/2 ton 2 wheel drive
$96/yr
Did I mention it was under $50/yr before all the "extras" got added in?
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
All that is a whole other thread, though.
Heck, there might even be one already...
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
01-16-2018, 22:38
My registration fees were $130 if I sent it in by mail. And when I went in because I waited too long they added another $10 for diesel fuel it uses. Now, its $140 a year plus $45 emission test every year. Its still a 22 year old truck getting better mileage then most other trucks out there. I suppose I could just walk everywhere. But if I choose not to I will have to pay through the nose for the privilege to drive. SMH.
But the OP is willing to pay an extra $5. per mag. You're not on board with that ? After all we need to compromise.
Compromise is just an hour and a half North.
Zundfolge
01-16-2018, 22:48
Let keep in mind....
The bumpstock bill...
Michael Merrifield..
DEM... El Paso county
When El Paso county is pushing gun parts bans and has no fear of repercussions (voters) we are in trouble.
Keep in mind that Manitou Springs is in El Paso County ... and is gerrymandered into its own district. Thus we get one douchebag every election like Mikey and have since the 60s.
But the OP is willing to pay an extra $5. per mag. You're not on board with that ? After all we need to compromise. There is where my extra fee's for magazines went^^! (middlefinger to the taxman emoji)
However, I do agree with the OP in that the Dems would be more interested in bribes and kick backs or plain ol tax and spend measures than to an appeal to what is right and wrong.
The state and feds have their hands in our shirts boys and girls and they are squeezing way to hard already.
My compromise:
Remove all restrictions on the 2nd, and we promise to not exercise the true intent behind the 2nd on those that want to enslave and rob us.
How's that. No restrictions on our rights, and they get to live.
We need a state level Trump that can convey that message. Although, a threat of death would be better than actually shooting them. I know, because that is the threat they use for paying taxes on time.
My registration fees were $130 if I sent it in by mail. And when I went in because I waited too long they added another $10 for diesel fuel it uses. Now, its $140 a year plus $45 emission test every OTHER year. Its still a 22 year old truck getting better mileage then most other trucks out there. I suppose I could just walk everywhere. But if I choose not to I will have to pay through the nose for the privilege to drive. SMH.
FIFY
But yea, sucks donkey ballz.
nope its every year. I did't stutter.
KevDen2005
01-17-2018, 09:31
I already have to pay a "fee" to get a background check.
I already have to pay a tax for an NFA item.
I already have to pay for a CCW permit.
I already have to pay an excise tax on firearms and ammunition.
I didn't mean to justify these taxes or fees. I was just stating that I don't think it's right and law abiding citizens shouldn't have to do it. Everyone here pays for the CCW and NFA items as well. They prefer not to and if we can avoid it I think we prefer not to have additional fees for our rights.
My compromise:
Remove all restrictions on the 2nd, and we promise to not exercise the true intent behind the 2nd on those that want to enslave and rob us.
How's that. No restrictions on our rights, and they get to live.
The way it should be. And it wouldn't move the crime stats one bit.
But we'd be denying them a monopoly on violence which gets in the way of their ultimate goals.
I didn't mean to justify these taxes or fees. I was just stating that I don't think it's right and law abiding citizens shouldn't have to do it. Everyone here pays for the CCW and NFA items as well. They prefer not to and if we can avoid it I think we prefer not to have additional fees for our rights.
In the words of a former President: "Read my lips. No. New. Taxes." They've already figured out in CO how to work around TABOR. What's really stopping them from further going after gun owners pocketbooks? It doesn't help that we have folks, here in our own community, openly stating that they'd gladly "pay a little more." That's how tyranny happens, when you keep giving them a piece of the cake without getting diddly in return. I say no more compromise, because in the end it's not compromise. They keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what they think it means.
Now Denver wants to bad standard capacity magazines with no grandfather clause. And they want to do it to be in line with the Colorado law. Its not more illegal if they copy the Colorado mistake. And why didn't they copy the Colorado law about preemption?
I don't have time today to respond to each comment. It's late and I need to go to bed.
But for those for the no compromise solution trying to get the mag ban over turned via the legislative means...how well has that worked out?
How well has the gun case worked out?
About the anti gunners...they compromised a little each time. They didn't what they wanted in full...So they settled for something.
Learn from the left.
Q. How does one eat an elephant?
A. One small bit at a time.
Take small wins when you can get them over no win at all.
Q. How does one eat an elephant?
A. One small bit at a time.
You must be a project manager. [ROFL2]
Great-Kazoo
01-17-2018, 16:42
I don't have time today to respond to each comment. It's late and I need to go to bed.
But for those for the no compromise solution trying to get the mag ban over turned via the legislative means...how well has that worked out?
How well has the gun case worked out?
About the anti gunners...they compromised a little each time. They didn't what they wanted in full...So they settled for something.
Learn from the left.
Q. How does one eat an elephant?
A. One small bit at a time.
Take small wins when you can get them over no win at all.
. Curious, how much you think the D's would take money wise for this round of compromise.
Where da fuk you get that information, VPC ??? Seriousely...... The anti gun faction has NEVER compromised.
But since you believe they have, here's a short read regarding the current crop of D compromise.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/17/colorado-bump-stock-ban/
State Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, introduced a bill the first day of the 2018 session to make the sale, purchase or possession of a multi-burst trigger activator a Class 5 felony punishable by a one to three years in prison. The measure includes tougher penalties for subsequent violations and builds on current restrictions for firearm silencers and machine guns.
Merrifield acknowledged the politics surrounding his bill, saying he was “flabbergasted” that Republicans could oppose such a measure.
“I’m waiting for somebody to explain to me a legitimate reason why any gun owner would need to convert a legal weapon into an illegal weapon,” he said.
In an interview, Gov. John Hickenlooper stopped short of supporting a full ban on bump stocks. Instead, he said, the devices should be subject to the same stringent approval process that applies to owning an automatic weapon.
“I’m not saying ban them,” the Democrat said. “I’m just saying you put them in the same category with weapons that are, with all intents and purposes, identical.
BTW: you've conveniently avoided answering my last question in post # 68
what exactly is a multi-burst trigger activator? I don't have a login so I can't read the article. Guessing they mean a bump fire stock?
what exactly is a multi-burst trigger activator? I don't have a login so I can't read the article. Guessing they mean a bump fire stock?
It's that thing right next to the shoulder thing that goes up.
Great-Kazoo
01-17-2018, 20:45
what exactly is a multi-burst trigger activator? I don't have a login so I can't read the article. Guessing they mean a bump fire stock?
It's another made up scare tactic word the party of compromise folks throw in, to get SJW moms to vote for.
what exactly is a multi-burst trigger activator? I don't have a login so I can't read the article. Guessing they mean a bump fire stock?
Here's the text.
http://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb18-051
Reading the text, I can’t help but wonder if they know their first bullet point is covered by NFA and the 2nd bullet point simply doesn’t exist because there is no device to increase the firing rate (I.e., cyclic rate), as that is a mechanical limitation by design.
What mouth breathing, idiotic Dim wrote this crap?
Sen. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs
Just checked and I’m outside of his district. Sheesh, what a dolt.
The creation of NFA items is a felony
Making something faster, an impossibility, is also a felony.
Ain’t a representative government grand? Lol
The way I understand it, a stronger trigger or buffer spring could technically make an AR cycle faster, until it won't cycle anyway....
I challenge any of these dumbasses to time how fast they can do a mag dump with a bump stock and a geissele compared to Jerry Miculek with a mil spec trigger group. They gonna ban the old man?
CobaltSkink
01-17-2018, 21:41
I'm inside his district, but those nice people from the International Benevolent Order of Assclowns sent me a restraining order that I shall not insult their organization.
kidicarus13
01-17-2018, 22:06
.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180118/9cb0d85dfcc122ac89f0bf58fed8fc91.jpg
KevDen2005
01-17-2018, 23:12
.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180118/9cb0d85dfcc122ac89f0bf58fed8fc91.jpg
Three seconds? I guess I'll just bring my muzzle loader!
Where da fuk you get that information, VPC ??? Seriousely...... The anti gun faction has NEVER compromised.
But since you believe they have, here's a short read regarding the current crop of D compromise.
https://www.denverpost.com/2018/01/17/colorado-bump-stock-ban/
State Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, introduced a bill the first day of the 2018 session to make the sale, purchase or possession of a multi-burst trigger activator a Class 5 felony punishable by a one to three years in prison. The measure includes tougher penalties for subsequent violations and builds on current restrictions for firearm silencers and machine guns.
Merrifield acknowledged the politics surrounding his bill, saying he was “flabbergasted” that Republicans could oppose such a measure.
“I’m waiting for somebody to explain to me a legitimate reason why any gun owner would need to convert a legal weapon into an illegal weapon,” he said.
In an interview, Gov. John Hickenlooper stopped short of supporting a full ban on bump stocks. Instead, he said, the devices should be subject to the same stringent approval process that applies to owning an automatic weapon.
“I’m not saying ban them,” the Democrat said. “I’m just saying you put them in the same category with weapons that are, with all intents and purposes, identical.
BTW: you've conveniently avoided answering my last question in post # 68
1st. I didn't avoid. No time. I have a few minutes before work this morning so I need to keep it short.
To fight against them, you need at least understand how they think.
To a anti gun person this multi burst trigger ban (and the 15 round limit) are a compromise. They are compromising on getting what they really want. They really want a complete ban on guns. To them any thing less is a compromise.
But they understand they won't get what they really want. They don't say "all or nothing". They will settle for the small incremental wins knowing it at least gets them closer to their end goals. They are playing the long game.
How well, since 2013, has the no compromise tactic worked to get us normal magazines back?
Sometimes small incremental wins are needed.
Great-Kazoo
01-18-2018, 00:35
1st. I didn't avoid. No time. I have a few minutes before work this morning so I need to keep it short.
To fight against them, you need at least understand how they think.
To a anti gun person this multi burst trigger ban (and the 15 round limit) are a compromise. They are compromising on getting what they really want. They really want a complete ban on guns. To them any thing less is a compromise.
But they understand they won't get what they really want. They don't say "all or nothing". They will settle for the small incremental wins knowing it at least gets them closer to their end goals. They are playing the long game.
How well, since 2013, has the no compromise tactic worked to get us normal magazines back?
Sometimes small incremental wins are needed.
How long you been shooting AR's, again, or other semi-autos ? AS i asked before.. Knowing a bill to limit magazine capacity to 15 rounds had a good chance of passing. You failed to plan ahead, no reason for your compromise B.S other than that.
Or is there?
What else you willing to compromise on with mine and other gun owners firearms to appease the AG crowd.,
Clearly you have no issue with a multi burst, what ever that unicorn is, trigger. Maybe collapsible stocks, yeah that's it you're willing to give them up too.
Throw in the extra $5 per mag fee. Why not up the BGC to mmmm say $50. What's your threshold per round fee, before you take action? Or is that on the table too , after all it's reasonable
[bs]
Curious, are you an actual gun owner? If you are one, why did you not buy greater than 15 round mags before the law took effect?
From your post sounds more like one of those common sense hunters and sportsman i've encountered before. Lets make nice so we can beg for our Constitutional RIGHTS.
Why do "we have to compromise" ??
Not sure what age bracket you're in, however i've seen compromise since 86. Oddest thing........... NEVER has the other side compromised on any gun law, Ever. Only thing i've seen.... Is MORE Laws, More restrictions, More road blocks for gun owners.
So yeah lets compromise and have more rights taken away.
To your first question. I am pretty sure you know the answer tonthat. You just want to lead off with ad hominem argument for the general reason why people do that.
The second, why does how many magazines I had before July 2013, have bearing on what I want to buy in 2018?
But since you want you play that game, I will play along.
Please point me to a source where I can legally by 300BLK Pmags. The key word is legally. I realize that places are openly selling them. However are they legal to own?
And those that are not understanding my position that the left compromises..
The current 15 round mags limit was not 15 rounds when Felony Fields introduced it and it made it through the house. The original bill was a 10 round limit. The Dems didn t refuse to compromise. They needed two votes more and that woykfmonky happen if they changed to 15 round limit. The could only get 15 round passed so they took that. The didn t say "10 rounds or nothing".
How long you been shooting AR's, again, or other semi-autos ?
Again ad hominem.
But I suspect very few people on this forum have been shooting semi auto firearms in CO longer than I have.
I still have ram-line 10-22 mags from when I was kid.
Do you want to try and make other as hominem arguments that have little bearing on the argument.
And again, since you think it was poor planning issue, please tell me how I could have planned ahead in 2013 to have 300blk pmags. Or a D60 pmag?
Stop with the personal comments. Discuss the issue. Don't like what someone writes, offer a rebuttal but not a personal attack.
This thread is getting close to the end of it's usefulness, so make your final comments before it gets closed.
If memory serves me there is no 300 AC Black Out mags. They are all .223 AR mags since the shell is the same they just widened the neck to fit a .30 bullet in there. So all .223 PMAGS should be 300 mags and vice versa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have been shooting since 2001 on my own with my own guns if I need to qualify. Before that I was always bumming a gun and ammo off of family and friends at the range. I never understood how they go so uppity over it either? Its not a big deal at all for someone to shoot a few rounds out of my guns. And if they bring their own ammo its even less of an issue as long as I don't hate them and they are safe as me.
I still think no compromise is the way to go. But if they want to repeal all the antigun laws going back to the gun show BGC in exchange for the bump stock ban only I could see a compromise there... maybe... if they don't try to double cross us.
If memory serves me there is no 300 AC Black Out mags. They are all .223 AR mags since the shell is the same they just widened the neck to fit a .30 bullet in there. So all .223 PMAGS should be 300 mags and vice versa. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I have been shooting since 2001 on my own with my own guns if I need to qualify. Before that I was always bumming a gun and ammo off of family and friends at the range. I never understood how they go so uppity over it either? Its not a big deal at all for someone to shoot a few rounds out of my guns. And if they bring their own ammo its even less of an issue as long as I don't hate them and they are safe as me.
Magpul now makes a 300BLK specific mag.
The issue is that any mag over 15 rounds made AFTER July 2013 is technically illegal to possess in Colorado.
As an example, I couldn't go buy a full frame P320 when first released because it was only available with a 17 rd mag (I believe there are CA compliant mags now that won't get up and kill some dumb lib).
Many new to market firearms that only offer >15 round mags are simply not available per the letter of the law.
You can't possess a 300BLK PMAG, you can't possess a Magpul AK mag. They were all mfr after the stupid law.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-18-2018, 08:52
Or maybe...
Baby steps.
Introduce a bill that allows CCW holders to purchase magazines greater than 15. Why would it at all be necessary to prevent law abiding citizens, who have had a background check performed, and are known to their sheriff from having these?
The way you attack this is you ask if we are going to limit police to 15 round magazines and when they say no you say that this just shows that even they fundamentally know that it isn't just the magazine, it is the person with it. (If they get into the fact that police are protecting us, shouldn't we be able to protect our family just as effectively?). CCW holders have crime rates similar to that of LEOs.
In a state like CO, you have to take the wins you can get, when you can get them. Until the GOP gets their heads together and form a viable party, to stop the gun grabs and have any chance of making things better you need D votes.
Otherwise you'll end up with your principles in one hand and your pud in the other.
The right plays hail-mary football while the dems play 3&out football. They move the ball and punt, and then come back.
If people want to follow Dumb-ass Dudley from RMGOs playbook, prepare to lose; bigly.
1st. I didn't avoid. No time. I have a few minutes before work this morning so I need to keep it short.
To fight against them, you need at least understand how they think.
To a anti gun person this multi burst trigger ban (and the 15 round limit) are a compromise. They are compromising on getting what they really want. They really want a complete ban on guns. To them any thing less is a compromise.
But they understand they won't get what they really want. They don't say "all or nothing". They will settle for the small incremental wins knowing it at least gets them closer to their end goals. They are playing the long game.
How well, since 2013, has the no compromise tactic worked to get us normal magazines back?
Sometimes small incremental wins are needed.
What you're describing- the democrats saying "Okay, not 10, we'll restrict more than 15" is not compromise. Compromise is defined as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." They are conceding nothing. Taking a little less is still taking. Infringing a little less is still infringing. I think that's what is getting Kazoo frustrated with your responses is that you're failing to realize his point of view as to what is or is not a compromise. I'll explain it this way: If I'm going to rob you, is it a compromise if you have $100, and I agree to only take $50? No. I'm still robbing you. That's the crux of the issue here. They haven't compromised a thing, they've just agreed to "infringe just a little less," but make no mistake, they're still infringing. Even if they agree to take a smaller piece of cake, they're still taking your damn cake, and most of us are sick and tired of having our delicious cake being STOLEN from us by anti-freedom tyrants.
wctriumph
01-18-2018, 13:09
A politician asks to borrow $20 from you and will pay you back the next day. The next day he gives you back $10 and when you ask him for the other $10 he tells you that paying you back the $10 makes you even because you both lost $10 on the deal.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-18-2018, 13:30
What you're describing- the democrats saying "Okay, not 10, we'll restrict more than 15" is not compromise. Compromise is defined as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." They are conceding nothing. Taking a little less is still taking. Infringing a little less is still infringing. I think that's what is getting Kazoo frustrated with your responses is that you're failing to realize his point of view as to what is or is not a compromise. I'll explain it this way: If I'm going to rob you, is it a compromise if you have $100, and I agree to only take $50? No. I'm still robbing you. That's the crux of the issue here. They haven't compromised a thing, they've just agreed to "infringe just a little less," but make no mistake, they're still infringing. Even if they agree to take a smaller piece of cake, they're still taking your damn cake, and most of us are sick and tired of having our delicious cake being STOLEN from us by anti-freedom tyrants.
When you have the majority, you can set the tune. You guy can yell "Muh GUNS" all you want. You play the cards you are dealt, and our side has the losing hand because the R's can't get their crap in line. You win the majorities- and keep your cats in a herd- and then you can compromise by 'giving up' open carry in state buildings for constitutional carry. And it isn't even the majorities themselves, it is having enough votes to get something out of committee for the body to vote on.
I DGAF about your definition of compromise. This is getting the least amount of damage for the longest amount of time. I can lose $100 or keep $50 bucks. It seems like some people would rather have no money and something to bitch about than $50.
Frankly, if someone is pointing a gun at my head and I walk away with $50, that is a win. Crap, I could have been killed or raped.
Some of us would rather put up a fight than comply with strong arm tactics. The Colorado constitution has guarantees about the right to keep and bear arms that are even more comprehensive than the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Too many times the "Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety" is used to allow the legislature to bypass the constitutionally mandated referendum process. Literally EVERY law that the legislature passes that has to have this language, with the exception for appropriations and budget.
One might want to actually read the Colorado Constitution sometime. Quite enlightening.
What you're describing- the democrats saying "Okay, not 10, we'll restrict more than 15" is not compromise. Compromise is defined as "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." They are conceding nothing. Taking a little less is still taking. Infringing a little less is still infringing. I think that's what is getting Kazoo frustrated with your responses is that you're failing to realize his point of view as to what is or is not a compromise. I'll explain it this way: If I'm going to rob you, is it a compromise if you have $100, and I agree to only take $50? No. I'm still robbing you. That's the crux of the issue here. They haven't compromised a thing, they've just agreed to "infringe just a little less," but make no mistake, they're still infringing. Even if they agree to take a smaller piece of cake, they're still taking your damn cake, and most of us are sick and tired of having our delicious cake being STOLEN from us by anti-freedom tyrants.
Actually compromise has two accepted meanings
1. An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.
2. The expedient acceptance of standards that are lower than is desirable.
If you read what I have been posting, it is clear I am referring to the second definition.
The current situation with regards to magazines is the DEMS are not taking anything right now. They did that. The rule of the land is no mags greater than 15. At this point they are not trying to change anything. We want something changed.
To get them to agree to change something that is already on the books, they need to have a reason to go for it. Sometimes, people can accept something (using the first definition) when they will get something in return.
We have to negotiate from a position of reality. Reality is, we dont have legal new 16+ round magazines. That is the law.
I have been misrepresented saying that I want to ban or tax something that is currently legal. I have never said.
What I have said is that I want 16+ round magazine, which are currently legal, and I am willing to take a position on normal capacity magazines, that is between all or nothing.
I am not for any additional gun laws (binary triggers, ammo taxes, etc). I am for trying to come up with a deal that gets us normal capacity magazine back.
I dont no want to trade bump stocks for magazines. But if its is a [reasonable] "fee" to buy a magazine that is currently verboten, I am willing to entertain the idea. To me, I dont care if a 30 round PMAG is $12, $17 or $22. I just want to be able to buy a 300BLK mag if I want it or a D60.
This is not about giving them more bans. This is about trying to get what is illegal back.
Some of us would rather put up a fight than comply with strong arm tactics. The Colorado constitution has guarantees about the right to keep and bear arms that are even more comprehensive than the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Too many times the "Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety" is used to allow the legislature to bypass the constitutionally mandated referendum process. Literally EVERY law that the legislature passes that has to have this language, with the exception for appropriations and budget.
One might want to actually read the Colorado Constitution sometime. Quite enlightening.
How the legislators get the CO Constitution is a different topic all together.
It not like TABOR stops them from enacting a tax....oh..sorry...I mean "fee"
The legislative session woud be quite short if they didnt invent ways around many things. And the courts supporting them doing it.
The way you attack this is you ask if we are going to limit police to 15 round magazines and when they say no you say that this just shows that even they fundamentally know that it isn't just the magazine, it is the person with it. (If they get into the fact that police are protecting us, shouldn't we be able to protect our family just as effectively?). CCW holders have crime rates similar to that of LEOs.
In a state like CO, you have to take the wins you can get, when you can get them. Until the GOP gets their heads together and form a viable party, to stop the gun grabs and have any chance of making things better you need D votes.
Otherwise you'll end up with your principles in one hand and your pud in the other.
The right plays hail-mary football while the dems play 3&out football. They move the ball and punt, and then come back.
If people want to follow Dumb-ass Dudley from RMGOs playbook, prepare to lose; bigly.
I agree with you on these statements. Basically the same position I have been taking.
Lets not forget this:
https://www.denverpost.com/2015/04/10/colorado-gun-allies-split-over-compromise-on-increasing-magazine-limit/
"Complete Colorado first reported that the gun group would not agree to 30 rounds. That came after a video surfaced from Revealing Politics in which Rep. Joe Salazar, D-Thornton, said he can’t vote for a repeal but could consider increasing the limit to 30 rounds."
2015 was the best shot.
"RMGO executive director Dudley Brown didn’t engage with Caldara, focusing instead on Democrats. He said they need to repeal limits or “face the election consequences in 2016.”"
They faced the consequences. The DEMS got a bigger majority and now this is off the table.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-18-2018, 16:04
Some of us would rather put up a fight than comply with strong arm tactics. The Colorado constitution has guarantees about the right to keep and bear arms that are even more comprehensive than the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Too many times the "Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety" is used to allow the legislature to bypass the constitutionally mandated referendum process. Literally EVERY law that the legislature passes that has to have this language, with the exception for appropriations and budget.
One might want to actually read the Colorado Constitution sometime. Quite enlightening.
I see the problem. You are applying a judicial differentiation to a legislative function. This is a lesson that the left has learned a loong time ago and uses to great effect. You can talk till you are blue in the face about constitutionality in the legislature. If you can't get the votes, it passes. It's actually counterproductive to talk about constitutionality at the legislative level, it is waste of time because you have to appeal to what drives the votes- money, power and re-elections. Vote for my bill and get those or vote against me and lose them.
After it is a law, then you get the constitutionality argument in front of a judge. Preferably in the jurisdiction you picked with a judge to get the decision you want. The left does this and usually blocks the right on 'standing'. Remember when Prop 8 in CA denied gay marriage? People forget that the people of CA in an election voted against gay marriage. It got overturned by the courts and the people who filed Prop 8 were denied standing to defend their own ballot initiative.
All of this gun legislation is a car wreck. There is no negotiation in a car wreck. You act as hard and as fast as you can to reduce the damage. We are in the middle of a car crash, stop wishing that we aren't in a car wreck and work to limit the damage.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-18-2018, 16:06
Dudley "Do nothing good' is in the Dudley business. He is about gun rights like bank robbers are into banking regulations- it all about where the money is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.