It's obvious that no anti-gun control legislation will ever pass out of committee in the Senate, for the Democrats know full well that their slim majority counts for naught in these types of legislation, as Sen. Tochtrop, D-Thornton, will vote on the side of the 2nd Amendment, as she has in the past.
That is exactly why they sent these to the kill committee this year, so there was no chance of them being heard by the full chambers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I'm surprised at how often that term "kill committee" is used by our pro-gun speakers and no one has raised an objection to the term.
Voted down 3-2 and the bill sponsor pulled the bill from consideration.
Did I hear that right "the bill is postponed" ?
The phrase "postponed indefinitely" translates to "it is impossible for the bill to appear on the Calendar again."Quote:
Originally Posted by StagLefty
In the Colorado General Assembly, every matter of official business that comes before the House, Senate, or a committee in either chamber must be scheduled and appear on the Calendar of the appropriate chamber (House or Senate). When a motion is passed to postpone indefinitely a certain bill, then that bill cannot be brought up again. There is no motion to "kill the bill," that action simply doesn't exist. Likewise, during the committee process in each chamber, the proper motion to "pass" a bill out of one committee and to the next committee or to the floor (Committee of the Whole) is "I move (Bill Number) as amended (if applicable) to the (Committee Name) with a favorable recommendation." At that point, there is no motion to "pass" the bill. When a bill reaches the final, Third Reading, vote in either chamber, the motion by the Majority Leader or Assistant Majority Leader is "I move (Bill Number) on Third Reading and final passage" - so, at that point, we use the word "pass[age]."
It's a common question and/or non-starter point of discussion whether "postponed indefinitely" could mean some sneaky trick to bring the bill up at some later point, but that is not the case. The 2014 General Session must end at or before midnight, Wednesday, May 7, 2014. Any/all bills that have not completed 100% of the process by that second cannot be advanced in any future session of the General Assembly (General or Special). Thus, with Senate Bill 100, it cannot be on the Senate Calendar again during the 2014 General Session and, once the 2014 General Session ends at or before midnight, May 7, 2014, any/all unfinished business that was brought up during that session must be re-introduced at the staring point - as a new bill - with a new bill number - potentially with new a sponsor(s) - in a future session.
Take for example House Bill 11-1205, which was my first run at "Constitutional Carry" during my first session in the House (2011). That bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on an 8-3 vote. Representatives Kagan and Lee, both Democrats, joined the six Republicans in voting "Yes" on the bill. It then passed out of the House on a vote of 40-25 with all 33 Republicans, plus seven Democrats voting in favor of the bill. HB 11-1205 then went to the Senate where… yep… the five-member "kill committee" voted 3-2 to "postpone indefinitely HB 11-1205." That bill was dead. In 2012, the exact wording of House Bill 11-1205 was introduced by Representative Kevin Priola as a House Bill 12-1092 (I ran "Make My Day Better" in 2012). So, HB 12-1092 was the exact same wording as HB 11-1205, but 12-1092 had to start at the very beginning of the process. The 2012 bill didn't get any "head start" due to what had passed in 2011. Different bill, different session. This is one example of how the Colorado General Assembly works differently than Congress in Washington, DC. A bill can hang around for two years in Congress. In the Colorado General Assembly, a bill has a maximum life of 120 days during the annual General Assembly. It either passes completely into law (signed by the Governor) or it must start over again as a new bill in a future session.
RepHolbert, thank you for your explanation. Very glad to have you keeping us informed here!
Thanks for the response Chris. If there is anything you think we should be doing to win these battles, please tell us!
More fodder for thought: The Democrats claim that reducing magazine capacity will save lives. How many lives? Let’s find out. First, I think we can agree that the only time magazine capacity limitations could ever affect the outcome of a crime is during an active shooter mass casualty event with 16 or more shots fired. The FBI has a nice collection of data on active shooter mass casualty events, henceforth ASMC, at http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/acti...m-2000-to-2012. Using this data, we can estimate the number of active shooter events in the US per year to be 15, trending upwards, so let’s use 20. Looking at the history of ASMC events, we can estimate some number of shots fired based on number of people killed. Let’s say 15 shots kills ten people. Of all ASMC events, only 17% exceed ten people killed. Likewise, we should discount the events where pistols or shotguns were the primary weapon, as 15 round magazine limitations likely don’t apply, so only 26% of ASMC had any kind of rifle as the primary weapon. Let’s take a conservative position and saw that all of these were MSRs.
We have two other factors to estimate: the probability that an ASMC takes place in Colorado, as HB 13-1224 only applies there, and the probability that the shooter is totally unable to get any magazines greater than 15 rounds and is thus limited by law. Colorado is only one of fifty states, but the Denver metro area does seem to have more than the normal complement of crazies, so instead of 2% lets go with 10%. Let’s go with the same number for the chance that a shooter can’t get 30 round magazines, even though that number is closer to zero. You can play around with those probabilities for sensitivity analysis, but that’s left as an exercise for the reader.
Given these numbers, let’s calculate the odds. Number of events = 20. Percent using > 15 shots, 17%. Percent using an “assault weapon” = 26%. Happens in Colorado = 10%. Can’t get 30 round magazines = 10%. Multiplying these out we get 20 x .17 x .26 x .1 x .1 = 0.0087. Now, according to the FBI charts from the ASMC webpage, we’re trending towards 60 people killed each year in ASMC events. 60 x .0087 = .52. That’s a half person that is likely to be saved each year by a 15 round magazine capacity limit, given the constraints above. In ten years that can be extended to 5 lives saved.
According to the CDC’s WISQARs injury/fatality database, in the ten year period from 2001 to 2010, for the population of children 17 and under, 563 drowned in bathtubs, 2,825 drowned in pools and 1,434 died in bicycle accidents. If we use the ratio Colorado’s population to the US population to estimate Colorado’s share of those deaths, we see that over a ten year period we can estimate that 9 children will drown in the bathtub, 47 will drown in a swimming pool and 24 will be killed riding while riding their bicycles. If we passed legislation prohibiting any of these activities, more children would be saved many times over the amount that the feel good HB 13-1224 could be expected to save. Of course, the Democrats will argue that bicycles, tubs and pools have legitimate uses and 30 magazines are only useful to kill large amounts of people in a short time, but given that the FBI shows that large capacity magazines are indeed only used to kill large amounts of people in a short time about 0.86 times a year while the other tens of millions of 30 round magazines owned by the public and law enforcement are evidently used for purposes that don’t kill large amounts of people in a short time, that argument is easily countered.
Their response would be "It is worth it if it only saves one life."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61