View Full Version : "Assault weapon" ban 2025 version
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-003
There's already a long post about this................. right below your post.......... the first one........ right below your post:
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/194388-Upcoming-legislative-session
buffalobo
01-09-2025, 08:54
There's already a long post about this................. right below your post.......... the first one........ right below your post:
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/194388-Upcoming-legislative-sessionThe "Thread" below is about the legislative session this year and include posts about multiple bills. This "Thread" as referenced in the title appears to be about one piece of legislation.
Sent from my SM-A037U1 using Tapatalk
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-11-2025, 14:08
I agree, could use a separate thread, as long as we keep this one to the particulars and facts about that specific law, and not the overall session and political shenanigans going on.
So my question on a specific of this law would be I think they are saying recoil operated pistols like 1911, or browning action or for that case almost every handgun outside of a desert Eagle 50 would not be included? I think they wrote this to try to grab the AR 15 base pistols. I guess a question I would have is would an MP five variant also be banned? My guess is that they would say yes since it is gas delayed. I guess it might also capture a HNK P7 pistol. Since it uses gas and it’s operating system?
newracer
01-13-2025, 09:39
One of their arguments during the "high capacity" magazine ban hearings was limiting magazine size didn't matter because you can switch them out so quickly. Hypocrites
Wait til someone shows them an Enfield rapid run.
One of their arguments during the "high capacity" magazine ban hearings was limiting magazine size didn't matter because you can switch them out so quickly. Hypocrites
How are they hypocritical?
They were told banning standard capacity magazines wont solve what they want to solve.
So they came out with this. No removable magazines.
They are being very open about what they are doing and saying exactly what they are doing what they say and saying what they will do. They want all semi auto gone (first). Then they will come for other guns.
They are playing the long game of incrementalism.
10 years from now most people in Colorado wont have a semi auto so they will just go along with the program. Sure, we will scream and shout at first.. but so what?
They were told banning standard capacity magazines wont solve what they want to solve.
So they came out with this. No removable magazines.
New York tried passing something similar decades ago in an attempt to ban any centerfire handgun or rifle capable of accepting a magazine which could hold over 15 rounds.
And it passed senate committee, now heads to entire senate.
beast556
01-29-2025, 01:08
Unfortunately we won't escape it this year. This is a done deal now. Polis won't veto or sign it he'll let it sit there and pass.
What would stop you from purchasing out of state?
There is no registration, and if there was would you comply?
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-01-2025, 01:35
From what I understand, at least if you are buying from an FFL, you’re going to have to fill out a 4473 and show ID. FFL‘s and other states are supposed to know that you would not be able to buy that gun in Colorado, so they are supposed to not sell it to you. A few years ago there was I think about a girl in Florida came up here and was obsessed with columbine, and bought a shotgun here, even though she was not old enough to buy it in Florida. The gun store here got in trouble? Something like that?
Transfer I guess would get around that problem.
I think we talked about this recently. In regards to FFL‘s,Can you only buy a handgun in your home state? And buy a rifle in states that about your own state? I may be wrong on that.
Correct. Can't buy handguns out of state. Can buy long guns. Technically no private party sales with out of state residents anywhere in the country, either. E.g. even where it is legal, it has to be between two residents of that state. Technically.
Great-Kazoo
02-01-2025, 07:57
Been gone from co 7 yrs no, saw this coming 20+ yrs ago. Just wait till someone hacks the forum, outing those still living in CO as potential domestic terrorist.
But, but it will never happen.
No it will not.
Nor will CO pass bgc at gun shows, or limit mag capacity, no more FTF sales, waiting periods to buy, or oh i don't know a Ban on semi autos.
Tell us CO democrats, who exactly is a threat to democracy, again?
theGinsue
02-01-2025, 11:05
Been gone from co 7 yrs no, saw this coming 20+ yrs ago. Just wait till someone hacks the forum, outing those still living in CO as potential domestic terrorist.
But, but it will never happen.
No it will not.
Nor will CO pass bgc at gun shows, or limit mag capacity, no more FTF sales, waiting periods to buy, or oh i don't know a Ban on semi autos.
Tell us CO democrats, who exactly is a threat to democracy, again?
I've been concerned about something like this with every new member that's joined the site in the last few years. I'm left wondering if the new CO member is truly legit, or an anti-gunner planning to wait quietly until enough of their cohorts join and they can start spamming us en masse while also collecting as much info on all of us to try to dox us.
Can someone please clarify something for me please? It states in the bill no sales, manufacturing, etc. does this mean even if we have an upper and lower but need barrels, handguards, bcg’s, etc? Company’s will stop shipping parts to CO?
Can someone please clarify something for me please? It states in the bill no sales, manufacturing, etc. does this mean even if we have an upper and lower but need barrels, handguards, bcg’s, etc? Company’s will stop shipping parts to CO?
I would assume that this would apply to sales of the lower receiver in the case of an AR or the upper in the case of an FAL. You have to look at the definition of manufacturing which is included in the bill. I would assume it is broad and includes assembly of a firearm by an individual.
I highly doubt non regulated parts would be restricted.
That?s exactly what I was assuming but thought I might have been being paranoid. This really is one of the worst bans ever, even CA isn?t this bad holy f*
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That?s exactly what I was assuming but thought I might have been being paranoid. This really is one of the worst bans ever, even CA isn?t this bad holy f*
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In reality it is really no different than the California law that requires a tool to be used for a detachable magazine. It used to be that if you had a rifle that didn't have any evil features than you could have a removable magazine but i think that has gone away in the last year or two.
The even scarier part of the bill is the part that says Co Attorney General can redefine meanings "at will"
I have finally read the bill.
I do see a rather interesting hole in the proposed legislation. I'm being mindful to not post it on the internet... but I'll share if it passes.
I can say this does not prevent inheritance, which is UNUSUAL. Normally the progressive strategy is a patient one, wait for everyone to die and they have them removed in a generation. OFC, maybe their long term is to eventually pass another bill to prohibit inheritance.
Yeah, being about to transfer to an heir is well known.
"Under the bill, a semiautomatic gun with a detachable magazine could still be transferred to an heir, someone in another state, or a federally licensed firearm dealer."
Senate majority whip says he doesn’t support the weapon ban part of this bill, does support banning triggers that he thinks are too fast.
https://x.com/nickforco/status/1886526899926786130?s=46
.455_Hunter
02-04-2025, 18:16
Senate majority whip says he doesn?t support the weapon ban part of this bill, does support banning triggers that he seems too fast.
https://x.com/nickforco/status/1886526899926786130?s=46
That legislator has a unique and eclectic view of the 2A debate. Looks like he would piss off both sides.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-05-2025, 14:00
I would think of the Democratic whip is coming out this publicly against it that it’s chances aren’t very good? I have a feeling he’s taking direction from Polis. Take a win on the bump stocks and keep the title. I doubt we’ll be so lucky next time.
They did get me for another MP five and HK 53.
Just got an email about a rally against this bill on Saturday the 8th, 12p. The Gallery Range 1350 Colorado Mills Parkway, Lakewood. Never heard of the place but got the email through the USCCA.
eddiememphis
02-05-2025, 16:01
I heard about it from a guy from Delta Defense on KNUS this morning.
They are going to have Ian Escalante from RMGO and Nick Hinrichsen speak.
Seems kinda silly to hold a rally for an anti-gun bill at a shooting range, but what do I know?
I would have invited Tom Sullivan and David Hogg.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-05-2025, 16:33
I thought I saw something going to be at the Centential Gun store/range too?
Let’s go close down I-25 and I-70 to show people how serious we are. That will win them over.. I was near downtown this afternoon and it seems the non-natives were getting restless. People walking towards the capital with Mexican flags…. To protest what exactly??? You can’t make this stuff up…. It only makes sense if they are Venezuelians trying to make the Mexicans look bad..
But you can still buy a "blicky wit da switch" from G-Money with no paperwork. Be sure to tell him "Gib me dem stendos, yo." They seem to have plenty. No serial numbers either.
Aren't they supposed to vote on it on the 7th? Why hold a rally after the fact?
.455_Hunter
02-06-2025, 12:02
More updates...
https://coloradosun.com/2025/02/06/senate-bill-3-colorado-votes/
eddiememphis
02-06-2025, 12:50
Aren't they supposed to vote on it on the 7th? Why hold a rally after the fact?
The Senate votes on the 7th. If it passes, it goes to the House.
The Senate votes on the 7th. If it passes, it goes to the House.
Yeah but this bill really has to end in the Senate, it's sure pass in the House.
**Apologies, I was a day off on my dates**
Any word on today's activity? I tried looking for an update online just now but so far I've only found the article that .455_Hunter posted.
Colorado (Democrat) Senate Majority Whip Hinrichsen said he would vote “NO”
98261
buffalobo
02-06-2025, 21:43
Colorado (Democrat) Senate Majority Whip Hinrichsen said he would vote ?NO?
98261Unless amended. He will support outlawing any sort of bump stock or rapid fire trigger device.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-07-2025, 01:29
Didn’t one of the sponsors pull his name from it? Said he didn’t know what he was signing up for? What a crock. Either way it’s good though. He either got enough pressure that he flipped, or EveryTwit did missprepresent and people pols will be less likely to sign up for it. I assume that Polis was leaning on people to keep this off his desk.
Good job Dudley?
God that sucks to say…
eddiememphis
02-07-2025, 09:10
Didn’t one of the sponsors pull his name from it?
Sen. Marc Snyder of Manitou Springs
https://coloradopeakpolitics.com/2025/02/06/colo-democrat-cosponsor-of-bill-banning-guns-changes-his-mind-will-vote-against-it/
https://coloradosun.com/2025/02/06/senate-bill-3-colorado-votes/
"Sen. Marc Snyder of Manitou Springs said he didn’t fully understand its effect when he agreed to attach his name to it."
Of the 23 Democrats in the chamber, 19 have either verbally committed to voting “yes” on the bill when asked by The Sun or have signaled they will support it by serving as cosponsors.
Two Democrats — Snyder and Sen. Nick Hinrichsen of Pueblo — say they can’t vote for the measure as is, while two more — Sens. Dylan Roberts and Kyle Mullica — haven’t said how they will vote on the legislation.
All 12 Republicans in the Senate are expected to vote against Senate Bill 3.
It takes 18 votes to pass a bill out of the Senate.
Looks like evertown and others are funded through USAID. Fantastic. Hopefully someone brings that up
eddiememphis
02-07-2025, 12:03
https://coloradochannel.net/watch-meetings/#tab2
Live feed
eddiememphis
02-07-2025, 12:04
Looks like evertown and others are funded through USAID. Fantastic. Hopefully someone brings that up
Link?
eddiememphis
02-07-2025, 13:13
Laid over until the 13th.
Well I guess with the layover that makes the rally on Saturday viable? Agree that having a gun range location is kinda weird, should be somewhere much more visible though we all know how Denver as a whole is as well as the legislature. Sad.
Don't know the reasoning for the hold over but I would guess it was to get more time to make sure they have the votes to push it thru.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-07-2025, 17:23
Don't know the reasoning for the hold over but I would guess it was to get more time to make sure they have the votes to push it thru.
The anti-gun people seem very adept at working on politicians to get them back on the reservation. Not sure if it is money, political pressure or just old fashinioned arm twisting.
Hopefully this falls apart in the senate. The house is 120% potato and will pass anything that even hints of gun control.
Link?
https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/exposed-taxpayer-dollars-laundered-through-ngos-to-everytown-other-anti-gun-operations/
TEAMRICO
02-07-2025, 19:14
Maybe something to do with the new Executive Order Trump just signed recently today.
The anti-gun people seem very adept at working on politicians to get them back on the reservation. Not sure if it is money, political pressure or just old fashinioned arm twisting.
They probably drop their kids off with them for a weekend.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/02/08/colorado-senate-delays-semiautomatic-gun-bill-debate-jared-polis/
kidicarus13
02-13-2025, 10:59
Enjoy the dog and pony show:
https://coloradochannel.net/watch-meetings/#tab2
Have been seeing posts online that one of the more anti gun dems will not be at the session today and that another dem has expressed serious concerns about this bill. Dems are concerned that they may not have the votes to pass this.
eddiememphis
02-13-2025, 14:52
https://x.com/RMGOColorado/status/1890116645378822643
Ian Escalante says there may be a major amendment to the bill, striking the banning of weapons and be replaced with a firearm owners licensing system and registration of existing guns.
Have been seeing posts online that one of the more anti gun dems will not be at the session today and that another dem has expressed serious concerns about this bill. Dems are concerned that they may not have the votes to pass this.
Good . . . freaking morons. Has to get killed in the Senate. The House is almost certainly too filled with whackos to turn down the chance for yet another "fix for gun violence". And I don't want to have to count on Polis for pretty much anything when it comes to common sense or the Constitution.
https://x.com/RMGOColorado/status/1890116645378822643
Ian Escalante says there may be a major amendment to the bill, striking the banning of weapons and be replaced with a firearm owners licensing system and registration of existing guns.
A judge just struck down the long standing Illinois FOID card (which is their version of a firearms license) as being un constitutional.
eddiememphis
02-13-2025, 17:04
A judge just struck down the long standing Illinois FOID card (which is their version of a firearms license) as being un constitutional.
Do you really think that the Constitution has any meaning to the idiots that write laws?
electronman1729
02-13-2025, 17:30
https://x.com/RMGOColorado/status/1890116645378822643
Ian Escalante says there may be a major amendment to the bill, striking the banning of weapons and be replaced with a firearm owners licensing system and registration of existing guns.
Can you provide a screen shot? Some of us don't sue social media.
eddiememphis
02-13-2025, 17:57
Can you provide a screen shot? Some of us don't sue social media.
It was a video.
I just watched Sullivan screaming about this bill.
What a cocksucker. He parades his son's death like a badge of honor.
His "facts" are bullshit. He claims this personal crusade is in the name of safety, when it is obvious he hates guns and anyone that owns them.
What a piece of shit.
.455_Hunter
02-13-2025, 18:04
It was a video.
I just watched Sullivan screaming about this bill.
What a cocksucker. He parades his son's death like a badge of honor.
His "facts" are bullshit. He claims this personal crusade is in the name of safety, when it is obvious he hates guns and anyone that owns them.
What a piece of shit.
Yup- Any sympathy I had for him has long turned into pure contempt.
eddiememphis
02-13-2025, 21:05
Escalante posted another video. He is talking to Sullivan. Tells him he dropped off a box of signed petitions against the bill from Sullivan's district.
Sullivan refuses to open it and call it a "box of trash".
Sounds like still in the amendments shenanigans.
Looks like the Ds are proposing an amendment that would institute some kind of licensure/training scheme to own firearms that they disapprove of. The bill did not get voted on, has been pushed till tomorrow.
eddiememphis
02-14-2025, 07:50
It passed.
"FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE ELIGIBILITY CARD"
Requires firearm owners to take a safety class with fees paid to the county sheriff and to Parks & Wildlife. Fingerprints and background check then the card is good for 5 years.
Parks can determine the fee, and can only raise it once per year.
It creates a new "FIREARMS TRAINING AND SAFETY COURSE CASH FUND".
So not exactly an owners card, it's a proof of education card.
No word on how this could possibly reduce crime.
.455_Hunter
02-14-2025, 08:11
It passed.
"FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE ELIGIBILITY CARD"
Requires firearm owners to take a safety class with fees paid to the county sheriff and to Parks & Wildlife. Fingerprints and background check then the card is good for 5 years.
Parks can determine the fee, and can only raise it once per year.
It creates a new "FIREARMS TRAINING AND SAFETY COURSE CASH FUND".
So not exactly an owners card, it's a proof of education card.
No word on how this could possibly reduce crime.
It passed 2nd reading (requires a 3rd) and supposedly the card is to purchase the naughty list guns. What a unconstitutional mess...
eddiememphis
02-14-2025, 08:36
Nothing about concealed carry permit reciprocity. They already have background check and fingerprints on file for that.
They added a list of exempt rifles, including Mini 14 Ranch, Mini30 and C&Rs.
Still bullshit, you know the fees will skyrocket and the "safety card" will soon be required for all purchases including ammo and reloading components.
Has this 'law' just created a poll tax?
Page 18, section 8 eliminates the grandfathering of magazines:
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_003_eng.pdf
.455_Hunter
02-14-2025, 13:34
Page 18, section 8 eliminates the grandfathering of magazines:
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025A/bills/2025a_003_eng.pdf
I think that just changes the penalty for possession outside of the grandfathering. The grandfathering section is not being amended.
I think that just changes the penalty for possession outside of the grandfathering. The grandfathering section is not being amended.
I agree with Hunter.
https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/files/18-12-302.pdf
Effectively the change preserves an affirmative defense, but makes it a de-facto violation that can be challenged with the possession date. Honestly, not any different than how SBR's are in Colorado - even with a tax stamp, it's a de-facto violation, the tax stamp creates a rebuttable defense.
TLDR: Not that big of an impact to the existing magazine ban.
The training thing, as mentioned, is a huge f'n mess.
On the flip side, at least we don't have Dudley around, demanding that there be no training exemption at all. After all, we're still waiting for the benefits of his influence in 2013 to be realized...
This whole thing is a fustercluck. Given that a federal judge just ruled the Illinois FOID card to be unconstitutional, this disaster clearly won't pass the smell test in light of Bruen, Heller, McDonald, etc. Unfortunately, none of that will deter the fuckwits occupying the state legislature, and it's gonna cost a fortune(borne by the taxpayers) to litigate it into its well deserved oblivion.
So fingerprinted and a background check to get the card but I'm sure that the card will not qualify you to actually be able to buy a firearm without another background check.
So fingerprinted and a background check to get the card but I'm sure that the card will not qualify you to actually be able to buy a firearm without another background check.
Yep, just like all the enhanced requirements, proficiency testing, fingerprints, and background check to carry a concealed handgun doesn't allow a person to buy a firearm without another background check or waiting period nor to satisfy all the BS of this new legislation.
Next up you'll need another card with similar requirements to buy ammo....on and on until you have a full 52 deck.
Is the card for new or existing firearms?
Doesn't matter. Shall not comply either way.
This used to be a really great state. If my sons and grandkids weren’t here I’d be gone when I retire in a few months-broken record and preaching to the choir I know.
eddiememphis
02-14-2025, 16:23
This whole thing is a fustercluck. Given that a federal judge just ruled the Illinois FOID card to be unconstitutional, this disaster clearly won't pass the smell test...
It's not a FOID.
It is a card issued by a sheriff, after submitting two copies of the applicants fingerprints to the CBI to do a background check, that gives the holder permission to take a 12 hour, 2 day class and take a test. If passed with 90% or greater correct answers, the instructor enters that info into a database which an FFL can access during the purchase of a firearm that meet the criteria in other parts of the bill- for now.
The Director of the CBI gets to set the new background check fee and keep the fingerprints on file. The sheriffs get to set their own fees, but can't be too low, ya know. The Division of Parks and Wildlife get to set their own fee for the class. They also get to set the curriculum which will include information about safe storage and child safety, firearm deaths and extreme risk protection orders, along with victim awareness, and of course, empathy. The treasury gets to create the firearms training and safety course cash fund. The fees from the safety course go to this fund. What does the fund fund? Operation of the new system!
Simple!
The card is only for new firearms (after September 2025). And certain firearms are exempt from even that requirement, the list reads like an arbitrary list from a video game, for instance, M1 Carbine, G-43, SVT-40, Springfield M1A, are not subject to the "ban" and wouldn't need a training card. (Although most FFLs out of sheer regulatory terror would probably require one and check regardless). It also exempts C&R, which many of the weapons identified in the list are already.... so IDK, typical contradictory authoring by people inexperienced in drafting bills as well as understanding firearms.
ETA: Also Inheritance does not require a training card under this act. The way I read it on first pass, I believe the approved list of instructors for CCW can also provide these training courses. Some counties, that's VERY easy to get on the approved list of instructors.
Seems like this is a pay for your rights...
electronman1729
02-14-2025, 20:24
The card is only for new firearms (after September 2025). And certain firearms are exempt from even that requirement, the list reads like an arbitrary list from a video game, for instance, M1 Carbine, G-43, SVT-40, Springfield M1A, are not subject to the "ban" and wouldn't need a training card. (Although most FFLs out of sheer regulatory terror would probably require one and check regardless). It also exempts C&R, which many of the weapons identified in the list are already.... so IDK, typical contradictory authoring by people inexperienced in drafting bills as well as understanding firearms.
ETA: Also Inheritance does not require a training card under this act. The way I read it on first pass, I believe the approved list of instructors for CCW can also provide these training courses. Some counties, that's VERY easy to get on the approved list of instructors.
What about AR-15's that are now C&R?
What about AR-15's that are now C&R?
Both C&R and Antique are exempt. No further cake cutting, so yes. However- like mentioned, getting a LGS or corp store clerk to understand the tossed word salad is a battle that might be unwinnable and they likely will want a card regardless.
theGinsue
02-15-2025, 09:59
Has anyone been able to decipher the difference between the "basic" and "Extended" safety courses other than the instruction time required?
From a legal perspective, what does the extended course provide that the basic does not?
eddiememphis
02-15-2025, 10:28
Has anyone been able to decipher the difference between the "basic" and "Extended" safety courses other than the instruction time required?
From a legal perspective, what does the extended course provide that the basic does not?
Either basic plus hunters education or extended.
Since the curriculum has not been designed yet, no one knows what the courses themselves would entail other than a lot of anti-Gun propaganda in both.
A BASIC OR EXTENDED FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE MUST INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO INCLUDING, INSTRUCTION ON SAFE HANDLING OF SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION MAGAZINES, SAFE STORAGE OF FIREARMS AND CHILD SAFETY, FIREARM DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH MENTAL ILLNESS, EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS DESCRIBED IN ARTICLE 14.5 OF TITLE 13, AND VICTIM AWARENESS AND EMPATHY.
JohnnyDrama
02-15-2025, 11:37
Hmmm...
With the speed this was implemented I can't help but wonder if this was the goal all along. Start with a scary bill that bans everything and "compromise" with something that is only a major PITA and may be shot down in court.
A twelve hour course to be created and delivered across several agencies sounds like a logistical nightmare. It looks good on paper but how's that going to work out in real life?
This is all about obstructionism. Much like the post-Bruen NY concealed carry bullshit, they law will go into effect, THEN they'll start to establish all of the protocols and proctological exams, 3 years minimum before they even get the appropriate forms printed. In the interim, FU if you want to buy a new gun that's not on their exempted list.
eddiememphis
02-15-2025, 12:19
Hmmm...
With the speed this was implemented I can't help but wonder if this was the goal all along. Start with a scary bill that bans everything and "compromise" with something that is only a major PITA and may be shot down in court.
I doubt it. There are several members of the legislature that have stated flat out that they want to ban all privately owned firearms.
My guess is this bill got shifted because Polis wants to be president and an outright ban on "assault rifles" would look bad on his record as a centrist, so they changed it to an "education" bill.
But don't worry. Regardless of what passes they will continue to try until they achieve their goals.
Giffords and Everytown have constitutional lawyers on staff that sit around all day and write this nonsense so that if one section looks like it won't pass, they can immediately substitute something else. They are the ones that are behind these bills. Does anyone really think that idiot Tom Sullivan drew this up himself?
electronman1729
02-18-2025, 18:49
Sounds like the bill passed the senate today.
buffalobo
02-18-2025, 19:17
Robert's and Mullica voted yes after saying they would vote no and it passed third reading, headed to House.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
It?s a test. If you comply with it, you fail.
eddiememphis
02-18-2025, 21:00
Joe_K is back!
Good to hear from you. I have missed your input.
Joe_K is back!
Good to hear from you. I have missed your input.
Did we lose anybody?
https://www.denver7.com/news/politics/controversial-gun-bill-passes-colorado-senate-even-as-two-initial-sponsors-flip
The last line in the article:
"The bill now moves to the Colorado House of Representatives. It’s expected to pass there and then be signed by Governor Jared Polis."
.455_Hunter
02-20-2025, 08:32
This is getting signed. The only question is what components are immediately injunctionable, especially given its highly doubtful the "training and vetting" program will be fully operational by September.
This is getting signed. The only question is what components are immediately injunctionable, especially given its highly doubtful the "training and vetting" program will be fully operational by September.
Deny the permit to get a permit by failing to implement the infrastructure, taking a page out of the book of all the states that were forced to go to "shall issue" for CCW permits. Look for the next "assault weapons" law to forbid possession in "sensitive areas", ie: anywhere outside of a locked safe.
Already started ordering the few things i dont have or duplicates I need.
.455_Hunter
02-20-2025, 13:05
Already started ordering the few things i dont have or duplicates I need.
Yup.
. Look for the next "assault weapons" law to forbid possession in "sensitive areas", ie: anywhere outside of a locked safe.
In New York, still illegal to have an inherited handgun in a locked safe... as well as switchblades, brass knuckles, nunchaku, blackjacks, saps, stun gun...
TEAMRICO
02-20-2025, 16:44
In New York, still illegal to have an inherited handgun in a locked safe... as well as switchblades, brass knuckles, nunchaku, blackjacks, saps, stun gun...
Because NY is the shiny city on the hill that is the Utopia for Liberals. So safe and clean.
Maybe there's some good news out there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zwn1mtTmvE
bellavite1
02-20-2025, 20:29
Maybe there's some good news out there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zwn1mtTmvE
Good Lord...2 hrs worth of video?
Can someone provide a recap?
Because NY is the shiny city on the hill that is the Utopia for Liberals. So safe and clean.
That applies to the entire state, even rural areas. NYC is even stricter.
Is this draconian bill saying that all mags over 15 rounds are illegal? No grandfathering?
.455_Hunter
02-22-2025, 10:21
Is this draconian bill saying that all mags over 15 rounds are illegal? No grandfathering?
No version I have seen eliminates grandfathering. They did change the misdemeanor level for acquiring "new" over 15 rd mags.
BPTactical
02-22-2025, 10:31
And you need to consider it is a weapon related misdemeanor which in this state will strip you of your 2A rights.
This state is irrevocably fucked.
According to RMGO SB-003 (AWB/FOID Mandate) has been pulled off the House calendar for now..
Fingers crossed it stays off the calendar. This has the amended bill with “heirs” struck:
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25-003
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-25-2025, 11:15
The way that this has been going, who knows what kind of stupidity they are going to try to ?fix? this with. What a complete mess.
They got me for a couple of guns and lowers last year. This year they got me to satisfy my HK tickle, and a couple more lowers. This is gettin expensive..
They got me for a couple of guns and lowers last year. This year they got me to satisfy my HK tickle, and a couple more lowers. This is gettin expensive..
AGREE !!!!
They are the best gun sales people in Colorado
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-25-2025, 19:31
So I saw some video of a gun guy and he was saying that the backlog for training for the FOID card would be years long, like maybe 4 years. Does anyone know if that 5 year renewal is to continue to buy new guns or to hold the guns you have? As in, if you let your FOID card expire, does that mean that you can still own guns? Is the FOID still for the 'AWB' aspect or all guns. Not that it matters much, ARs/GODM are the most popular guns sold anyways.
While they didn't get to a registry first, by making every transfer go through an FFL, they grabbed that as the 'choke point'.
What a mess. I'd think that Polis would look at this steaming pile of crap and tell the gun grabbers that he's not putting his name on a three way loser. And I'd think a judge, acting rationally, would look at this convoluted mess and injunct it or just throw it out.
So I saw some video of a gun guy and he was saying that the backlog for training for the FOID card would be years long, like maybe 4 years. Does anyone know if that 5 year renewal is to continue to buy new guns or to hold the guns you have? As in, if you let your FOID card expire, does that mean that you can still own guns? Is the FOID still for the 'AWB' aspect or all guns. Not that it matters much, ARs/GODM are the most popular guns sold anyways.
While they didn't get to a registry first, by making every transfer go through an FFL, they grabbed that as the 'choke point'.
What a mess. I'd think that Polis would look at this steaming pile of crap and tell the gun grabbers that he's not putting his name on a three way loser. And I'd think a judge, acting rationally, would look at this convoluted mess and injunct it or just throw it out.
The card allows you to purchase semi auto firearms with detachable magazines.
Everyone needs to cheer up.
The Dems were very generous and didn’t pass an AWB.
They simply banned semiautomatics with detachable magazines to make us all safe.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-26-2025, 08:36
Everyone needs to cheer up.
The Dems were very generous and didn’t pass an AWB.
They simply banned semiautomatics with detachable magazines to make us all safe.
THe sadly funny part is that as they tried to make something that was unconstitutional a little more palatable to someone (don’t know who)- they made it more convoluted, pissed off more people, and added new avenues to attack it constitutionally.
kidicarus13
02-26-2025, 08:45
The Dems were very generous and didn?t pass an AWB.
They compromised.
eddiememphis
02-26-2025, 09:38
The card allows you to purchase semi auto firearms with detachable magazines.
The card allows you to take a class.
Once the class is completed by passing a test with 90% or better, you are then qualified to purchase semi auto firearms with detachable magazines. After another background check and a three day waiting period, of course.
However, once you take the class and learn about the evils of firearms and develop compassion for gun violence victims, you certainly won't be inclined to own one of the incredibly dangerous weapons of war.
If it saves one life, isn't it worth it?
kidicarus13
02-26-2025, 10:11
The card allows you to take a class.
Once the class is completed by passing a test with 90% or better, you are then qualified to purchase semi auto firearms with detachable magazines. After another background check and a three day waiting period, of course.
Technically, you could be shooting a standard capacity 30rd magazine (of course possessed pre-2013) out of a post-September 1 registered rifle.
Why are gun laws and regulations so convoluted and ridiculous?
eddiememphis
02-26-2025, 13:49
Why are gun laws and regulations so convoluted and ridiculous?
Ask him (https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/brianna-titone)...
98359
I don't want to explain too much, unless it passes. I'll leave this for folks to brainstorm though... think for a bit, to yourself, how Amendment 64 works interstate with other states, that ban distribution and possession of MJ.
If this passes, it will eventually be tossed in light of Bruen, Heller, MacDonald, Caetano, and any number of other legal precedents. The bigger problem is that will take years, endless funds, and someone with the time to pursue it all the way to it's well deserved oblivion. We really need a law to make it criminal to pass legislation that is facially unconstitutional. This disaster not only abrogates the US Constitution by trampling on several amendments, but the Colorado constitution as well.
The Colorado Constitution protects the right to bear arms in Article II, Section 13. This means that no person's right to keep and bear arms in defense of their home, person, and property can be questioned.
It would be the funniest thing ever if Bad Orange Man abolished the ATF and established Constitutional Carry nationwide for all citizens and "resident permanent aliens" over 18... but of course that'll never happen.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-26-2025, 21:27
... what we need is the DOJ coming in and file civil rights lawsuits and getting consent decrees an other legal jujutsu to tamp this crap out.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-27-2025, 11:32
Ask him (https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/brianna-titone)...
98359
Well, that cures me of my unhealthy Red-head addiction…
This annual panic buying is getting tiring and expensive.
All I have to say is, come and get them, and good luck finding them all.
98368
kidicarus13
02-27-2025, 14:22
All I have to say is, come and get them, and good luck finding them all.
98368I remember those PMAG 40s just made it under the dealine by a couple of weeks.
electronman1729
02-27-2025, 21:14
Ask him (https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/brianna-titone)...
98359
Is that a tumor on the neck?
Ask him (https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/brianna-titone)...
98359
Ask him (https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/brianna-titone)...
98359
OMG that is so hawt?.
What man wouldn?t want that woman?
All I have to say is, come and get them, and good luck finding them all.
98368
Yeah. But once you use them they are no good anymore.
Yeah. But once you use them they are no good anymore.
How true. I've unpackaged and used almost half of them. Good thing I have a few left somewhere.
JohnnyDrama
02-28-2025, 14:57
I remember those PMAG 40s just made it under the dealine by a couple of weeks.
That's funny. I found a stash of four or five I don't remember buying, still in unopened packaging, the other day.
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-28-2025, 15:22
This annual panic buying is getting tiring and expensive.
Word?
And now its happened so often, that I find random stripped lowers that I have no idea when I bought them. If it ever came to a registration, I have no idea how many ?ARs? i have.
kidicarus13
02-28-2025, 17:19
And now its happened so often, that I find random stripped lowers that I have no idea when I bought them. If it ever came to a registration, I have no idea how many ?ARs? i have.
You have as many as you tell them you have.
Yeah the 40’s were from the CO Air Drop or whatever the initiative was called when magpul flooded the state before they said bye. It was great!
There is no amount of email comments that will counter $oros money.
eddiememphis
03-01-2025, 17:09
I can understand why the Ruger mini-14 is not included in the ban.
I was watching a documentary about a crack commando unit that was sent to prison in 1972 by a military court for a crime they didn't commit.
These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, they are still wanted by the government.
Their weapon of choice is the mini-14. Thousands of rounds expelled, not one enemy casualty. They appear to be harmless.
If you spot these men, notify the authorities immediately. They are considered armed and dangerous.
98393
JohnnyDrama
03-02-2025, 08:24
I can understand why the Ruger mini-14 is not included in the ban.
I was watching a documentary about a crack commando unit that was sent to prison in 1972 by a military court for a crime they didn't commit.
These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, they are still wanted by the government.
Their weapon of choice is the mini-14. Thousands of rounds expelled, not one enemy casualty. They appear to be harmless.
If you spot these men, notify the authorities immediately. They are considered armed and dangerous.
98393
The A Team never gets old.
Sterlings should also be exempted for the same reason
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-03-2025, 17:36
When will MP5s be eligible for C&R status?
eddiememphis
03-03-2025, 18:01
Here is the letter I sent. Feel free to copy it and sent it to all the assholes trying to shove this nonsense down our throats.
Governorpolis@state.co.us
Dear Governor Polis,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB25-003, a bill that I believe unfairly burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to effectively address violent crime. While I fully support efforts to enhance public safety, this legislation imposes restrictions that disproportionately impact responsible gun owners without targeting the root causes of criminal activity.
The vast majority of gun-related violence is committed by individuals who already disregard existing laws. HB25-003 places new legal and financial burdens on those who follow the rules, including extensive fees, waiting periods, and bureaucratic red tape that only hinder responsible ownership. Criminals, by their very nature, do not comply with such regulations, meaning the bill does little to deter those who pose an actual threat to public safety.
Furthermore, this legislation infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. Studies consistently show that restrictive gun laws do not correlate with reduced crime rates; rather, they penalize those who responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights. Instead of creating obstacles for responsible citizens, our state should focus on enforcing existing laws, strengthening mental health resources, and targeting repeat offenders who drive violent crime rates.
I urge you to oppose HB25-003 and instead advocate for policies that address crime at its source rather than restricting the rights of those who abide by the law. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. I look forward to your response.
eddiememphis
03-03-2025, 19:59
The bill was pulled from today's calendar. No word on when it will be heard.
.455_Hunter
03-03-2025, 22:00
The bill was pulled from today's calendar. No word on when it will be heard.
No doubt rescheduled to 3:00 am on a Sunday morning.
Here is the letter I sent. Feel free to copy it and sent it to all the assholes trying to shove this nonsense down our throats.
Governorpolis@state.co.us
Dear Governor Polis,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB25-003, a bill that I believe unfairly burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to effectively address violent crime. While I fully support efforts to enhance public safety, this legislation imposes restrictions that disproportionately impact responsible gun owners without targeting the root causes of criminal activity.
The vast majority of gun-related violence is committed by individuals who already disregard existing laws. HB25-003 places new legal and financial burdens on those who follow the rules, including extensive fees, waiting periods, and bureaucratic red tape that only hinder responsible ownership. Criminals, by their very nature, do not comply with such regulations, meaning the bill does little to deter those who pose an actual threat to public safety.
Furthermore, this legislation infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families. Studies consistently show that restrictive gun laws do not correlate with reduced crime rates; rather, they penalize those who responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights. Instead of creating obstacles for responsible citizens, our state should focus on enforcing existing laws, strengthening mental health resources, and targeting repeat offenders who drive violent crime rates.
I urge you to oppose HB25-003 and instead advocate for policies that address crime at its source rather than restricting the rights of those who abide by the law. Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter. I look forward to your response.
Well written and saved for future use.
The bill is back on, and will be heard on Tuesday, "upon adjournment" which means they're trying to sneak it by and expect that since there's not a time specified, people won't show to testify. Upon Adjournment means they could slip it in at any time, from the beginning of the day to very late at night.
There's a rally starting at 9am on the west side of the Capital. No concealed carry because you wont get in with a gun; leaving it in your car without being "secured" as per the law going into effect in January would also be bad news, since downtown Denver has turned into a full-on cesspool of crime. If you're coming, bring food and water, don't wear "controversial" types of clothes- dress patriotically without wearing anything that make make those with the personality strength of a soap bubble feel "offended." The rally is being put on by Spartan Defense, bless them. I hope there's not enough room on the steps to hold everyone. There are more suggestions on the website for signing up for the rally.
Want to join the rally?
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/protect-the-2a-rally-3112025-9am-tickets-1274848549329?aff=oddtdtcreator
Want to sign up to testify?
https://wethesecondcolorado.com/public-testimony-101/
Want to remind politicians of their duties? Here's the form:
https://form.jotform.com/250351194274050
Want to blow up some email inboxes and maybe call and let people know how you feel? The buttons are down near the bottom of the article on this sh!tshow of a bill:
https://wethesecondcolorado.com/colorado-assault-weapons-ban-bill-roadblocks-sb25-003/
Time to make our voices heard.
According to this article they are using funds from CPW, CBI, and the wildlife cash fund to back this bill. I will no longer support them until they stop
https://wethesecondcolorado.com/sb25-003-money-shell-game-tabor-cpw-cbi-the-wildlife-cash-fund/
eddiememphis
03-09-2025, 14:44
The fact that it is going to cost $3.4 million to implement should be enough to get the bill tabled, at time when the budget is already $1.2 billion short and the state constitution prohibits running a deficit.
buffalobo
03-09-2025, 18:34
As if the commies in control at the capital give a shit about constitutional prohibitions.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
eddiememphis
03-10-2025, 15:04
Good Point
As if the commies in control at the capital give a shit about constitutional prohibitions.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
Truth
eddiememphis
03-11-2025, 12:39
My neighbor went to the rally. Said there were a lot of people including women and "even a couple of hippies!"
He took a couple of other 'Nam vet with him. I asked if he thinks the rally and testifying will make any difference. He just laughed.
"Not until they learn guns don't kill people, it's the guy behind the trigger."
TEAMRICO
03-11-2025, 12:41
They don’t want the poor and minorities owning firearms.
Just keep repeating that.
Racist and elitest laws passed by the same.
kidicarus13
03-11-2025, 15:46
Systemic racism!
They don’t want the poor and minorities owning firearms.
In some neighborhoods, it seems every boy is given a Glock on his 13th birthday, lol.
The left literally in every sense, does NOT want the poor and minorities to own firearms and there is absolutely nothing incorrect or disingenuous about saying that. In fact you can legitimately substitute practically any group description and it’s also correct. Fortunately, it seems like a lot of the LGBTQ community are starting to care about their 2A rights and speak up in support of them. As they should!!!
As I’ve said before, if the left is really worried about the new administration and a supposed “dictator” in charge of our country, they’d better start thinking more like freedom fighters and support the second amendment! Their lives or the lives of their progeny could depend on it someday…
JohnnyDrama
03-11-2025, 17:22
Is anybody playing Candy crush?
eddiememphis
03-11-2025, 17:30
They don?t want the poor and minorities owning firearms.
While true, this bill has nothing to do with that. Poor people don't buy $1500 guns.
This bill is about control.
TEAMRICO
03-11-2025, 19:51
While true, this bill has nothing to do with that. Poor people don't buy $1500 guns.
This bill is about control.
I do.
Did you not get the sarcasm?
Testimony is still going on, and many, many people pointed out that the poor and minorities would be severely impacted.
BPTactical
03-11-2025, 21:14
While true, this bill has nothing to do with that. Poor people don't buy $1500 guns.
This bill is about control.
Truth
Passed first committee 7-4 along party lines with a bunch more amendments added, it has to now go through the house finance committee along with testimony. This committee vote will likely come down to a single vote vs a three vote advantage in the previous committee.
eddiememphis
03-12-2025, 12:17
98451
Tomorrow (Friday) the bill is going to be heard at the finance committee. From what I understand, they're far more moderate in this committee, and they will be hearing testimony.
buffalobo
03-14-2025, 01:17
As reported by Ian Escalante.
"Rep. Andrew Boesnecker, one of the bill sponsors, said it was ?unfortunate? that Colorado?s County Sheriffs viewed themselves as the defenders of their counties? 2nd Amendment rights!"
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
BPTactical
03-14-2025, 05:18
As reported by Ian Escalante.
"Rep. Andrew Boesnecker, one of the bill sponsors, said it was ?unfortunate? that Colorado?s County Sheriffs viewed themselves as the defenders of their counties? 2nd Amendment rights!"
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
Oh yeah?
I view elected representatives who fail to ABIDE BY AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO AND THE UNITED STATES as violating their oath of office and as such should be removed from said office immediately.
You can sign up to testify for this today. From what I read the testimony must be about the possible financial impact of this bill and not the bill itself.
Sounds like it passed out of finance.
JohnnyDrama
03-15-2025, 08:14
Here are some "highlights" from the hearing.
https://youtu.be/rHfFNrEQCZc?si=5pcnikE_ccD0w9Bi
Courtesy of the Teller County Sheriff's Sounds like our elected officials didn't want to hear from law enforcement. Or anybody else who opposed their agenda.
The state is faced with a 1.2 billion budget shortfall. Sounds like the perfect time to fund a stupid licensing scheme because they hate certain people.
buffalobo
03-16-2025, 10:40
Teller County sheriff video is from 3/11 Judiciary committee meeting and needs to be spread far and wide.
These imperious arrogant fukking commie legislators need exposed and run out of the state. Their disdain for freedom and desire to rule over the citizenry is sickening.
If you're unarmed, you are a victim
Does a ccw permit come to play regarding classes for these stupid ass taxes (refuse to call them fees because they’re just a straight up tax paid to exercise our constitutional right)?
Does a ccw permit come to play regarding classes for these stupid ass taxes (refuse to call them fees because they’re just a straight up tax paid to exercise our constitutional right)?
No
kidicarus13
03-16-2025, 14:55
NoWhy would they allow that? Make it less onerous for the already law-abiding?! This is Colorado, not Wyoming.
FromMyColdDeadHand
03-18-2025, 14:08
What’s the latest? Or more realistically when will this all be done with and I’ll just pay attention then.
Its on to the house floor next.
Schedule indicates house floor Thursday the 20th.
https://leg.colorado.gov/content/house-floor-work-2
Second reading of bill is on todays house calendar.
buffalobo
03-21-2025, 22:20
Adjourned til Monday 10am.
This will end up being passed and left in Polis lap.
eddiememphis
03-22-2025, 09:44
I read it advanced last night. 3rd reading is on Monday.
https://x.com/RMGOColorado/status/1903293005403914318
CO Gun Control Bill Update: SB25-003 advanced on 2nd reading in the House by a vote of 38-27. The bill has NOT passed yet. We're expecting a final 3rd reading vote on Monday. Many
@COHouseDem
reps came up to us and told us they KNOW this bill is crap, but they're too afraid to upset their party bosses. Dems were all over the place on Amendments. Plenty of reasons for them to vote NO on final passage. We've now got the weekend to pressure just 6 more to do the right thing and vote NO. Then we go to the Senate (again) if it comes to that. Well fought
@COHouseGOP
. WE ARE NOT DONE YET.
If you intend to pass another gun control law, there are certain common sense provisions to take under consideration:
First, is this law overly broad, vague, onerous, restrictive, arbitrary, capricious, or places an undue burden, in comparison to an average of other laws from the other 50 states?
Second, how many actual firearms experts have had opportunity to review the bill and point out possible errors of fact or unintended consequences?
Third, are penalties Draconian?
Finally, is the law so contemptuous that the average law abiding gun owner would choose to disregard or ignore it?
eddiememphis
03-22-2025, 14:19
If you intend to pass another gun control law, there are certain common sense provisions to take under consideration:
First, is this law overly broad, vague, onerous, restrictive, arbitrary, capricious, or places an undue burden, in comparison to an average of other laws from the other 50 states?
Second, how many actual firearms experts have had opportunity to review the bill and point out possible errors of fact or unintended consequences?
Third, are penalties Draconian?
Finally, is the law so contemptuous that the average law abiding gun owner would choose to disregard or ignore it?
1-Yes, it is. We are forging a new path and that path has to cover a lot of ground.
2- Zero. This isn't about guns. It's about saving lives.
3-You bet they are. That's the point- to change the behavior of those that only understand punitive measures.
4- Let's hope so. Then we can not only lock them up but strip them of their so called Second Amendment "rights" at the same time.
colorider
03-22-2025, 14:36
98507
BPTactical
03-22-2025, 21:32
98507
In the ass
Dry
Bailey Guns
03-23-2025, 07:27
I disagree it was Polis who's responsible. He did, and is doing, exactly what the majority that elected him wants him to do. Colorado was trashed by your fellow voters.
The left destroys everything it touches. Everything. Colorado is no different. Stevie Wonder could've seen this coming. Like Mike Rosen preached so often, the party is far more important than the person. Colorado is the perfect example to illustrate that.
Here's another reason: "Many @COHouseDem reps came up to us and told us they KNOW this bill is crap, but they're too afraid to upset their party bosses." Even if there was such a thing as a "good" democrat, they're not going to defy the party to vote against the party line, without party permission (ie: permissible sometimes if the party knows a bill will pass and they allow it to make the representative look good to constituents).
The democrat party is evil, plain and simple. They're gonna get their gun ban in Colorado, one way or another. It may not be this one, but they're gonna get it.
I disagree it was Polis who's responsible. He did, and is doing, exactly what the majority that elected him wants him to do. Colorado was trashed by your fellow voters.
The left destroys everything it touches. Everything. Colorado is no different. Stevie Wonder could've seen this coming. Like Mike Rosen preached so often, the party is far more important than the person. Colorado is the perfect example to illustrate that.
Here's another reason: "Many @COHouseDem reps came up to us and told us they KNOW this bill is crap, but they're too afraid to upset their party bosses." Even if there was such a thing as a "good" democrat, they're not going to defy the party to vote against the party line, without party permission (ie: permissible sometimes if the party knows a bill will pass and they allow it to make the representative look good to constituents).
The democrat party is evil, plain and simple. They're gonna get their gun ban in Colorado, one way or another. It may not be this one, but they're gonna get it.
While I do agree, mostly, with your comments in that this thing called the Democratic party and their work on destroying out 2A rights, Gov Polis is a Democrat and the Governor.
So he is "part of their system" not separate from it.
Likewise, I agree, it isn't just one person behind these gun control laws. So it isnt really effective to focus distain or hatred solely towards one.
There are several house/Senators who have made it their "bread and butter" to introduce and push one worthless law after another.
But Gov Polis is the Gov and, in effect, the leader of the Dems in Colorado.
So yes, he does deserve having some of the frustration directed towards him.
eddiememphis
03-23-2025, 09:10
The democrat party is evil, plain and simple. They're gonna get their gun ban in AMERICA, one way or another. It may not be this one, but they're gonna get it.
Fixed it for ya.
JohnnyDrama
03-23-2025, 09:44
I disagree it was Polis who's responsible. He did, and is doing, exactly what the majority that elected him wants him to do. Colorado was trashed by your fellow voters.
The left destroys everything it touches. Everything. Colorado is no different. Stevie Wonder could've seen this coming. Like Mike Rosen preached so often, the party is far more important than the person. Colorado is the perfect example to illustrate that.
Here's another reason: "Many @COHouseDem reps came up to us and told us they KNOW this bill is crap, but they're too afraid to upset their party bosses." Even if there was such a thing as a "good" democrat, they're not going to defy the party to vote against the party line, without party permission (ie: permissible sometimes if the party knows a bill will pass and they allow it to make the representative look good to constituents).
The democrat party is evil, plain and simple. They're gonna get their gun ban in Colorado, one way or another. It may not be this one, but they're gonna get it.
I agree. The leftists groom their politicians from the time they begin their political careers to put the party before the constituents. With similarly crappy/onerous bills being pushed through the state assemblies in Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Illinois (those are off the top of my head) I wonder if this is a vetting process by "the bosses" to see who they will support/advance next year and in 2028.
This passed the second reading late Friday night.
It will pass the third...
Then go back to Senate to revote with the amendments.
It will pass.
Then what will happen is Polis wont sign it. It will go into law by default since he wont veto it. He can have it both ways. He didnt sign it into law so there is no attack there. He got his gun control.
It sounds like the amendments move implementation out for a year until sometime in summer of 2026.
eddiememphis
03-23-2025, 13:51
It sounds like the amendments move implementation out for a year until sometime in summer of 2026.
August 1, 2026
Gives them time to get all the computer stuff sorted out- which, they won't, and it will be a mess for another couple of years with so many agencies involved.
August 1, 2026
Gives them time to get all the computer stuff sorted out- which, they won't, and it will be a mess for another couple of years with so many agencies involved.
And lawsuits
electronman1729
03-23-2025, 20:51
Found these gems in the crawl space this weekend.
98514
callerys
03-23-2025, 20:55
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blue-state-gop-rep-forced-remove-2a-sticker-from-laptop-offensive
So wrong. 2A sticker was considered offensive in CO government
kidicarus13
03-24-2025, 17:02
Not even close in the House (3rd Reading).98516
eddiememphis
03-24-2025, 17:16
Maybe saner heads will prevail in the courts.
Although I doubt it.
babarsac
03-24-2025, 17:32
Found these gems in the crawl space this weekend.
98514
I just found 2k rounds of CCI 9mm in the garage in the garage [Ban1]
JohnnyDrama
03-24-2025, 17:54
Not even close in the House (3rd Reading).98516
Best government money can buy!
Firehaus
03-25-2025, 08:58
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DHmnKgRPRvB/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well luckily (or unluckily) an August 2026 implementation date means I don’t have to spend as much money right now.
The couple of months have been expensive
OneGuy67
03-27-2025, 07:29
For those who have Facebook. Rep. Ryan Armagost speaks to the effect of RMGO and Dudley Brown had on the final vote. The republicans had been working quietly with the more moderate dems, but Dudley being Dudley, threw a grenade into the fray and caused them to vote party line.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1QLc7k2Juq/
Right, wrong, or indifferent...
DEMS are very good at "party first" and going along with what the party bosses say.
REPS are very good at principle, individualism, limited government, and ideals. You know those American values in the and the Constitution.
But REPS are very bad at "party first" and doing as they are told by the bosses.
So in the end, which ends up with votes needed to push the agenda?
Firehaus
03-27-2025, 10:59
Right, wrong, or indifferent...
DEMS are very good at "party first" and going along with what the party bosses say.
REPS are very good at principle, individualism, limited government, and ideals. You know those American values in the and the Constitution.
But REPS are very bad at "party first" and doing as they are told by the bosses.
So in the end, which ends up with votes needed to push the agenda?
100% Self fracturing while evil bands together because some evil is better than no evil.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kidicarus13
03-28-2025, 17:15
...is a loser in the Senate (with Amendments)19-15
I would be remiss if I did not quote the bill sponsor, Senator Julie Gonzales, as she spoke on the bill again today. "If you can't do it in 15 rounds, may I suggest... that maybe you shouldn't do it. That's all I'm sayin'."
In other words, SUCK IT COLORADO!
BPTactical
03-28-2025, 19:08
...is a loser in the Senate (with Amendments)19-15
I would be remiss if I did not quote the bill sponsor, Senator Julie Gonzales, as she spoke on the bill again today. "If you can't do in 15 rounds, may I suggest that maybe you shouldn't do it. That's all I'm sayin'."
In other words, SUCK IT COLORADO!
But what if the law abiding citizen you are facing has 16?
TEAMRICO
03-28-2025, 19:09
...is a loser in the Senate (with Amendments)19-15
I would be remiss if I did not quote the bill sponsor, Senator Julie Gonzales, as she spoke on the bill again today. "If you can't do in 15 rounds, may I suggest that maybe you shouldn't do it. That's all I'm sayin'."
In other words, SUCK IT COLORADO!
Was she giving some helpful advice to the criminals? Boy that should stop crime.
So flash forward and this bullshit is in affect. Does that mean as a CO resident you can no longer buy a gun in another state? Your 2A rights are strictly limited to CO?
eddiememphis
03-29-2025, 10:13
Does that mean as a CO resident you can no longer buy a gun in another state? Your 2A rights are strictly limited to CO?
If you mail order, the FFL that does the transfer is responsible for verification of your eligibility.
From the wording of the bill, all FFLs will have access to the database. So Cabela's in Nebraska will be able to see if you have your permission slip. Will this happen? Probably, at least among the big vendors. They just add another line in the computer.
This is a very clever bill, no doubt.
Watch for it to be introduced in every state over the next few years- at least until the Supreme Court rules on it's constitutionality.
be what it may, I aim to misbehave
JohnnyDrama
03-29-2025, 16:49
In other news....
https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1905408375879540761
According to this from Gun Owners of America, the DOJ is going to go after states that are making lawful gun ownership difficult. The article specifically names California but also refers to "other states."
This has been an interesting ride. I wonder how much of this was on the political horizon while 25-003 was being "debated" and what kind of shenanigans were/are in the works.
I don't trust the politicians or the DOJ but that something is on paper is a positive sign.
TEAMRICO
03-29-2025, 16:55
be what it may, I aim to misbehaave
I can dig it.
Now that this is far enough along...
I challenge anyone to read this bill and find where it prohibits someone from possessing one of the "bad guns" if they were purchased legally out-of-state at any date... whether prior to the bill, or ...
You'll find that the combination of federal and state laws makes it so that one could not legally buy a handgun out of state, that would have to be shipped to a FFL. This is true wherever you live in the country, you can't, for instance, legally go to Wyoming and get a handgun from a gun store (they would have to ship it to CO). But you COULD get a long gun while vacationing in nearby states.
This bill prohibits the sale and/or transfer subject to exceptions ... inside the borders of Colorado. Hypothetically, if you purchase a long gun in another state, then drive across the border in Colorado, I fail to see anything in this bill, even by a stretch, that would make your drive a crime.
eddiememphis
03-29-2025, 19:09
FFLs are required to comply with the laws of both states, not just the one they are doing business in.
25-003 says the database will be available to all FFLs.
Failing to comply with another state’s regulations could be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(b) (unlawful sale or transfer)
Now that this is far enough along...
I challenge anyone to read this bill and find where it prohibits someone from possessing one of the "bad guns" if they were purchased legally out-of-state at any date... whether prior to the bill, or ...
You'll find that the combination of federal and state laws makes it so that one could not legally buy a handgun out of state, that would have to be shipped to a FFL. This is true wherever you live in the country, you can't, for instance, legally go to Wyoming and get a handgun from a gun store (they would have to ship it to CO). But you COULD get a long gun while vacationing in nearby states.
This bill prohibits the sale and/or transfer subject to exceptions ... inside the borders of Colorado. Hypothetically, if you purchase a long gun in another state, then drive across the border in Colorado, I fail to see anything in this bill, even by a stretch, that would make your drive a crime.
If you buy a long gun out of state they still follow the laws of your state of residence.
FFLs are required to comply with the laws of both states, not just the one they are doing business in.
25-003 says the database will be available to all FFLs.
Failing to comply with another state’s regulations could be considered a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 922(b) (unlawful sale or transfer)
Good discussion.
922 is interesting because (a) provides exeptions to something deemed unlawful while (b) lists things that are unlawful. This creates an interesting conundrum.
922(a)(3) (it is unlawful) "For any person...to transport into [the State]... except that this paragraph shall not preclude... ... if it is lawful to purchase OR possess such firearm in that state.
Though purchase/transfer is prohibited without the cards, possession is not. Thus, the declaration of exceptions combined with the "OR" creates an interesting interplay in ?(a).
922(a)(5) Is the same... (it is unlawful) "For any person".... to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport.... to any person who the transferrors knows.... does not reside in [the State]... except this paragraph shall not apply to.... a person who is permitted to acquire OR possess a firearm under the laws of the State of residence.
You are probably right with 922(b)(2) because it states the converse "it would be unlawful to sell or deliver.... where the purchase OR possession by such person...". Thus a FFL dealer under plain-text reading of ?922 commits a crime selling a firearm where possession is legal, but acquisition is not.
Arguably, the private party is not necessarily implicated under 922(a)(5) and the CO resident is arguably not implicated by tranporting into their home state under 922(a)(3) as possession is legal. The statute should, more correctly, state "AND OR" in section 922(a). (a person who is permitted to acquire AND OR possess a firearm".
Caveat always applies to this discussion, what is legal is largely hypothetical, at the end of the day, people get prosecuted for whatever a judge and prosecutor doesn't like, the law hardly ever has played into the equation. If they want to get someone, they pretty much always will.
ETA: I'll also add they get to assert legislative intent to read language that isn't even in the law, whenever they want to. Appeals take 9 months to a year and a half with an average remand rate of about 5%., whatever a judge decrees is usuallly a done deal.
eddiememphis
03-30-2025, 16:51
Caveat always applies to this discussion, what is legal is largely hypothetical, at the end of the day, people get prosecuted for whatever a judge and prosecutor doesn't like, the law hardly ever has played into the equation. If they want to get someone, they pretty much always will.
Which is why it's probably not a good idea to makes posts like #202 if you are indeed going to ignore a particular law.
The internet never forgets.
bellavite1
03-31-2025, 05:34
FWIW:
At the end of the bill, I read:
"18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties -
14 exceptions. (1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a
16 large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor".
Sounds to me like the magazines grandfathering has been eliminated.
Am I wrong?
Can anyone point out where it says you can still legally own mags purchased before 2013?
People ask for info at the range and I don't want to give incorrect information.
OneGuy67
03-31-2025, 08:34
FWIW:
At the end of the bill, I read:
"18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties -
14 exceptions. (1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a
16 large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor".
Sounds to me like the magazines grandfathering has been eliminated.
Am I wrong?
Can anyone point out where it says you can still legally own mags purchased before 2013?
People ask for info at the range and I don't want to give incorrect information.
As I read it, the final revision of the bill states:
In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-12-302, amend (1)(a) as follows:
18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties - exceptions.
(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on and after July 1, 2013, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor.
The bill amends the language of subsection (1)(a) to eliminate the words "on and after July 1, 2013" and changes the class of Misdemeanor from a Class 2 to a Class 1.
It does not change the language of subsection 2, which states:
(2) (a) A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she:
(I) Owns the large-capacity magazine on July 1, 2013; and
(II) Maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.
(b) If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.
My $0.02. Take it for what you will.
bellavite1
03-31-2025, 09:45
As I read it, the final revision of the bill states:
In Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-12-302, amend (1)(a) as follows:
18-12-302. Large-capacity magazines prohibited - penalties - exceptions.
(1) (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, on and after July 1, 2013, a person who sells, transfers, or possesses a large-capacity magazine commits a class 2 CLASS 1 misdemeanor.
The bill amends the language of subsection (1)(a) to eliminate the words "on and after July 1, 2013" and changes the class of Misdemeanor from a Class 2 to a Class 1.
It does not change the language of subsection 2, which states:
(2) (a) A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she:
(I) Owns the large-capacity magazine on July 1, 2013; and
(II) Maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.
(b) If a person who is alleged to have violated subsection (1) of this section asserts that he or she is permitted to legally possess a large-capacity magazine pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2), the prosecution has the burden of proof to refute the assertion.
My $0.02. Take it for what you will.
Thank you.
eddiememphis
03-31-2025, 10:52
Good catch.
Looking at the bill, it seems are also amending C.R.S. 18-12-302 which is the magazine capacity law, by striking out the July 1, 2013 date.
I haven't heard anyone talk about that one.
98543
OneGuy67
03-31-2025, 11:32
Good catch.
Looking at the bill, it seems are also amending C.R.S. 18-12-302 which is the magazine capacity law, by striking out the July 1, 2013 date.
I haven't heard anyone talk about that one.
98543
Which is what we were discussing with Bellavite1's inquiry.
Yeah as pointed out it does not strike out the affirmative defense, so it's not an issue per se, you still have the defense and ability to own pre July 13 mags.
I don't know why they went to the effort to strike out the one section, but it is garbage authoring for a garbage bill.
JohnnyDrama
03-31-2025, 16:33
Yeah as pointed out it does not strike out the affirmative defense, so it's not an issue per se, you still have the defense and ability to own pre July 13 mags.
I don't know why they went to the effort to strike out the one section, but it is garbage authoring for a garbage bill.
They have to pass it to find out what's in it?
.455_Hunter
03-31-2025, 16:42
I don't know why they went to the effort to strike out the one section, but it is garbage authoring for a garbage bill.
Perhaps because when the bill was written 01 July 2013 was in the future?
Now that is has passed I will ask a question.
(g.7) "RAPID-FIRE DEVICE" MEANS ANY DEVICE, PART, KIT, TOOL, ACCESSORY, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE 1 STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR THE SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS
So if I buy a rifle (or lower) from Franklin Armory that is factory configured with a binary trigger, is that legal?
If is not increasing the rate of fire because the firearm already comes with device installed and therefore the „standard rate of fire“ is with a binary trigger since it is in changing a factory firearm!
Now that is has passed I will ask a question.
(g.7) "RAPID-FIRE DEVICE" MEANS ANY DEVICE, PART, KIT, TOOL, ACCESSORY, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF INCREASING THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM ABOVE THE 1 STANDARD RATE OF FIRE FOR THE SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE EQUIPPED WITH THAT DEVICE, PART, OR COMBINATION OF PARTS
So if I buy a rifle (or lower) from Franklin Armory that is factory configured with a binary trigger, is that legal?
If is not increasing the rate of fire because the firearm already comes with device installed and therefore the „standard rate of fire“ is with a binary trigger since it is in changing a factory firearm!
No. It’s not the standard…
No. It’s not the standard…
Subject to the prior caveats that I have listed...
I would argue the opposite. If he bought the lower with the trigger, it is the standard as built. It is arguably included within the acceptable legislation, which states, "AND REQUIRES A SEPARATE PULL, RELEASE, PUSH, OR
INITIATION OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH CARTRIDGE" The fact that a separate... release is integrated into the definition would give a compelling argument inside a courtroom.
That said, if your judge has pink hair and pronouns, you are f####ed no matter what any law is.
Another point here is that it adds it to the definition of a dangerous weapon under C.R.S., in the same category as a short barrelled rifle.
There is an affirmative defense if you possess a valid "permit" for the dangerous weapon.
It would be a decent at worst, and likely very strong argument that a tax-stamped weapon (e.g. a SBR) has a valid "permit and or license" for the weapon, and thus the "Rapid Fire Device" prohibition would fall under the same affirmative defense that lets you own an SBR:
https://cbi.colorado.gov/sites/cbi/files/C.R.S.%2018-12-102.pdf
Again, so long as your judge doesn't have pink hair and pronouns - I suggest moving any binary triggers in one's possession to tax stamped weapons (SBR/SBS). The affirmative defense is "for the weapon", which you have if you have the tax stamp in hand. YMMV, no guarantees, not legal advice.
ETA: If you buy the factor configuration, SBR it w/ the tax stamp. Two layers of defensive argument there.
bellavite1
04-01-2025, 15:47
About them rapid fire devices:
The news has repeatedly stated that the bill prohibits the purchase of rapid fire devices (implying that previously owned ones would be ok to keep).
The text is just re-defining them as dangerous weapons, which would make them illegal immediately upon implementation, no matter when acquired.
What says you?
BPTactical
04-01-2025, 20:08
"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
About them rapid fire devices:
The news has repeatedly stated that the bill prohibits the purchase of rapid fire devices (implying that previously owned ones would be ok to keep).
The text is just re-defining them as dangerous weapons, which would make them illegal immediately upon implementation, no matter when acquired.
What says you?
That is correct (your statement re: the text)
OneGuy67
04-02-2025, 15:11
Subject to the prior caveats that I have listed...
I would argue the opposite. If he bought the lower with the trigger, it is the standard as built. It is arguably included within the acceptable legislation, which states, "AND REQUIRES A SEPARATE PULL, RELEASE, PUSH, OR
INITIATION OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH CARTRIDGE" The fact that a separate... release is integrated into the definition would give a compelling argument inside a courtroom.
That said, if your judge has pink hair and pronouns, you are f####ed no matter what any law is.
I agree with FoxtArt on this, due to the requirement he's outlined.
OneGuy67
04-02-2025, 15:13
About them rapid fire devices:
The news has repeatedly stated that the bill prohibits the purchase of rapid fire devices (implying that previously owned ones would be ok to keep).
The text is just re-defining them as dangerous weapons, which would make them illegal immediately upon implementation, no matter when acquired.
What says you?
I would say that they are banned from ownership along with bump stocks, if Governor Polis signs the bill.
I would say that they are banned from ownership along with bump stocks, if Governor Polis signs the bill.
Or merely allows it to pass into law without his signature. Which is exactly what that spineless douchnozzle will do.
OneGuy67
04-02-2025, 18:55
Or merely allows it to pass into law without his signature. Which is exactly what that spineless douchnozzle will do.
You are probably correct in your assessment.
Just remember if you choose civil disobedience with respect to this...
You may win in court...but as they stay.
The process is the punishment.
BushMasterBoy
04-03-2025, 21:15
I like to think of valuables being buried in PVC pipe and recovered by metal detector. Why are only kings and presidents allowed to protect themselves? TYRANNY!
I like to think of valuables being buried in PVC pipe and recovered by metal detector. Why are only kings and presidents allowed to protect themselves? TYRANNY!
This is a very clear explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8SpgmF0sA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z8SpgmF0sA)
Mr Spooky
04-08-2025, 19:52
I thought polis had til Monday to sign or veto the bill or it will automatically become law. What happened?
OneGuy67
04-08-2025, 21:07
I thought polis had til Monday to sign or veto the bill or it will automatically become law. What happened?
He has until the 13th. Weekends don't count on the clock.
The bill is being signed at 3p today
The bill is being signed at 3p todayWhere did you get this information? Been looking around
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
3beansalad
04-10-2025, 13:40
Where did you get this information? Been looking around
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
CSSA sent out an email saying they have "unconfirmed but credible rumors suggest Governor Jared Polis may sign Senate Bill 3 (SB3) into law today." No matter the outrage, they are following the Brady Campaign playbook to the letter.
Just wonderful. He's a coward
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
Where did you get this information? Been looking around
Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk
From contacts at the state house, Polis is signing this one & 3 others.
From contacts at the state house, Polis is signing this one & 3 others.
That was a very foolish decision.
His political career is over and, eventually, that law will be overturned.
That was a very foolish decision.
His political career is over and, eventually, that law will be overturned.
I can't believe signing this would help his Presidential campaign. So maybe we at least don't have to worry about him running for Prez.
electronman1729
04-10-2025, 16:14
98603
JohnnyDrama
04-10-2025, 16:40
I don't think this is about Polis' political career and the likelihood that it will be overturned is irrelevant. This is a virtue signal by those who like to signal. Since e Colorado has done it, all the good leftists will want to catch up. We'll have to see how quickly the race to the bottom goes and what shenanigans will follow. Maybe Polis will still be the best candidate the left can run.
eddiememphis
04-10-2025, 16:56
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/mar/09/controversial-permit-to-purchase-gun-bill-clears-w/
The left never rests...
Democrats in the Washington state House on Saturday approved an overhaul of the state’s system for buying guns.
Under the legislation, prospective gun buyers would need to first apply for a five-year permit from the Washington State Patrol. To get the permit, applicants must have completed a certified firearms safety training program within the past five years, with exceptions for police officers and active military service members.
If the applicant has completed the safety course, the state would have to issue the permit unless the person is barred from having guns, out of custody on bond awaiting trial or sentencing on felony charges, or the subject of an arrest warrant.
Now we get to buy our right back.
kidicarus13
04-10-2025, 17:14
You have until August 2026 to exercise your right for free ...+6.5%
OneGuy67
04-10-2025, 17:51
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/mar/09/controversial-permit-to-purchase-gun-bill-clears-w/
The left never rests...
Democrats in the Washington state House on Saturday approved an overhaul of the state’s system for buying guns.
Under the legislation, prospective gun buyers would need to first apply for a five-year permit from the Washington State Patrol. To get the permit, applicants must have completed a certified firearms safety training program within the past five years, with exceptions for police officers and active military service members.
If the applicant has completed the safety course, the state would have to issue the permit unless the person is barred from having guns, out of custody on bond awaiting trial or sentencing on felony charges, or the subject of an arrest warrant.
What that tells you is the members of the legislature don't write their own bills or amendments. They get them from special interest groups who are the puppeteers behind the scenes. I wonder how it feels to have some person from Everytown or Mom's Demand Action's hand firmly up your ass and moving you around like a puppet.
What that tells you is the members of the legislature don't write their own bills or amendments. They get them from special interest groups who are the puppeteers behind the scenes. I wonder how it feels to have some person from Everytown or Mom's Demand Action's hand firmly up your ass and moving you around like a puppet.
Honestly, this has always been the case, legislators are never the ones that write the bills they introduce.
As for Polis, he's probably already received signals from within the party that he'll never be a serious contender for a presidential nomination. He may be gay, but I'm the end he's still a white male with a business background.
As for Polis, he's probably already received signals from within the party that he'll never be a serious contender for a presidential nomination. He may be gay, but I'm the end he's still a white male with a business background.
Polis is a Fag that most people don’t want as a president.
Here’s a list of all the people who voted for the bill if you live in there district make sure to vote them out!!!
https://app.coloradocapitolwatch.com/bill-votes/1/SB25-003/2025/0/all
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.