Printable View
Just that when I read through this thread, I'm not feeling this very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
I can see your intentions are good, but I'm sure that was the same thing of those that rolled over in California as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
I have no doubt that boxy is pro 2A. He might be right about what he's proposing as well. But it feels like rolling over too easy. I'm not going to take up much space in this thread because it seems like we tend to lose no matter which path we take.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
No hard feelings boxy.
You can think of me however you want.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
Busted!! Now I have to go Californicate another state.... maybe Idaho next....Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
What is it that you are not feeling? I think what I am trying to do here is mitigate as much damage as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
No hard feelings at all, brother. We are all here for the same reason, because we are passionate about firearms and our rights. I'm sure this conversation would go differently over a beer - lots of stuff gets lost online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Also, to be clear, this is not my proposal. I am just the messenger here.
I'm definitely busting your balls, just not maliciously.
Don't forget to bring IKEA with you!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
Too Late your fellow CA locust are screwing Boise big time.
What you find reasonable as a former CA resident, is what we've been trying to fend off for some time. It's not reasonable, it's not in any gun owners interest to compromise with the anti gun faction.
What's going on in Boise?Quote:
Too Late your fellow CA locust are screwing Boise big time.
I don't think any of what Boulder is proposing is reasonable. Like I said, I'm trying to mitigate harm here.Quote:
What you find reasonable as a former CA resident
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
You come from a state that has 10 day waiting periods, bgc (soon) and permits for purchasing ammo, NO Shall issue (statewide) CCW NO pre 94 semi autos, No guns that don't pass the CADOJ requirements. CA's DOJ roster of banned firearms is longer than what most gun dist. carry. Bullet buttons and the originally approved mags purchased / mfg before 9/94 no longer grandfathered.
On & On
So for you to say the harm is mitigated, is what we see as another step towards CA's draconian gun restrictions. If not worse.
As for Boise, homes we looked at while there 6 months ago, listed for $250K have been resold 1-2x by CA transplants, now listed in the low $400's.
My cousin with a construction co. has seen the CA mentality trying to change even simple things like how the city deals with Illegals and homeless. MOTS repressive, progressive mentality trying to turn that city and some of the state in to the shithole CA is.
Doing an informal survey?Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
No, was just curious on his thoughts on the NFA and the registration involved with that. But I'm pretty sure I know the answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Look man, I'm not sure what it will take to convince you that I don't want any of that here. I didn't even get into firearms until I moved here, and that was only in the last year and a half. In the meantime, let's just see what comes down the pipe this weekend.Quote:
You come from a state that has...
boxy, there is no such "deal". Not least because Boulder can't enforce any of that nonsense outside of their jurisdiction. So for example, a ban on purchase under 21 is just utterly stupid since its not a far drive to the county line and last time I checked they let 18-20 year old drive cars.
Why are you here trying to pass off this load of horse manure?
It's relevant information to the topic at hand. It's completely ok to form your own opinion on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
Why? it's Common Sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by spqrzilla
It's ok for everyone to form their own opinion. You have your's, others see it differently. I'm willing to see how it plays out, with bolder doing this as a symbolic political move. Rather than an actual stance that would have others, like their mindset, see one cannot stop evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
I assure you, I have.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
The meeting that was scheduled for today didn't happen. The Moms refused to meet with the council and the gentleman who was writing this alternate proposal on the grounds of "He's not qualified enough to meet with us". I wonder if the higher ups got wind of the progress we were making and stamped out any inclination of cooperation. Gotta have their gun owner scalps.
One council member is voting no on the ordinance. I guess we go on the offensive from here. I won't be able to make the meeting this week, but we need bodies there. Write the Council, etc.
I will unashamedly admit that I was wrong here. There is no reasoning with these people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
Bienvenido Calirodo
Well.. despite the council meeting docket saying there would be no public input at this meeting there was a half hour public session at the beginning of the meeting where you could have two minutes to speak about any city issue you would like. The moms were there and I don’t think there was a single pro gun speaker. I was under the belief there would be no speakers and had no idea there was a list to sign up anywhere.
Anyway.. the council is going deeper and has even decided to not give LEOs any kind of expemption on personal firearms.. We’ll see what kind of response that gets from the police dept behind the scenes. They pretty much got rid of all the exemptions. The compromise that was brought up recently in this thread was mentioned in very brief passing and not given any serious discussion in any way.
Nagel is strictly against any kind of registration, Young is also weary of registration, Carlisle and Grano want a complete ban on possession, all guns out of the city “just like Deerfield”, I believe Jones is also in this camp, the rest feel like they need to do something even though they know it will only be symbolic.
I had to leave at 10:00 so I didn’t make it to the end.
Hmm, so this is what the French Revolution looked like.
ETA: If they end up with the worst versions, I really wonder what Denver will do for the next hoplophobic, virtue signaling push.
Daily Camera summary...
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boul...ssault-weapons
Not sure how this version compares in totality to the original.
So, you have to have a coupon for the gun? The title says possession would be illegal- with out the paper?
I think the biggest thing is that 10 round magazines hits rifles, but it also hits handguns. That always gets overlooked.
Basically, the law makes a criminal out of everyone that owns a semi-auto handgun. And since these are always sold as AWB and bump stock bans, most people don't realize it means them too.
ETA: I really think that the issue of handguns and magazines by making thousands of people who don't own EBRs into criminals might resonate.
"They'd have to get rid of magazines with the capacity to hold 10 or more rounds by Dec. 31."
Is that a typo? 10rd mags = illegal?! Who makes 9rd mags?
It would seem that pistol mags capable of holding more than 15 rounds are being banned now, as well.
The camera article is wrong they got rid of the Leo and the military exemption for personal Firearms. Leos and Military are only allowed to have firearms for official Duty. Carlisle even questioned why the police need AR15s anyway and suggested that maybe they should not have them anymore.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
They forget to mention those coupons come are yellow colored stars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
Umm yeah. greater than 15 rd mags have been banned from being sold OTC as well as with guns person-person, since 7/13
Take the focus off of the AWB and towards the mag ban- which isn't like the state ban that had grandfathering. That is a confiscation with out compensation- which supposedly is a big issue. The other part, like I said, is that the focus is on AW, not on hand guns. Every single owner of a non-revolver handgun becomes a criminal through inaction.
The gun grabbers won't care- they like that. Middle of the road or wavering people see the inherent injustice of something like that. I don't know what you can rally a majority to change the law to. At least grandfathering or something.
So you get to keep them with the coupons or not?
The law in the current form? The LEOs should show up at councilpersons offices with body armor and gear, drop it on their desks and tell them to have fun playing gun grabbing NAZI. A tough to enforce law, that puts LEOs in harm's way and disarms them at the same time. Something for everyone....
Their claim is that it is not confiscation without compensation because you would have time to sell your items or get them out of the city so in their minds there is no loss.
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
That is like saying the Holocaust was the Jew’s fault because they didn’t leave when they could.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
You can’t sell your 15+ round mags in state, you have to sell them out of state.
Seriously, I think the best tack to take is how many people will be made criminals through in action? That isn’t something ‘symbolic’. That is fines and jail time for real law-abiding citizens.
How may people own guns, how many have semi-auto hand guns? I have to think that you are talking thousands of people. 50% gun ownership? 10-25% of the population affected?
Throw it off the rails for that.
Don't forget the various colored triangles as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_c...ngle_triangles
#16670, a legacy to live up to.
spineless, gutless libtard cowards is all these council members are.
Residents of Boulder...do not comply. fuck these people and their unconstitutional law.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How does this apply to non-residents of Boulder when traveling thought the city? I'm I required to surrender my CCW and its 15rd mag?
I would suspect the non-resident exemptions for possession in vehicle or under CC handgun permit are retained in this current version. Even Carr agreed those could not be circumvented by local law.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperiorDG
Predicted compliance level: 0%
Cue the lawyers in 3...2..1...
And for all the talk of some supposedly reasonable council members:
This was a done deal, with or without the open-carry at the rally, etc.Quote:
The Boulder City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to advance a ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons, bump stocks and high-capacity magazines in the city.
A quote from one of the gun-grabbing council members:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Councilwoman Jill Adler Grano
Looks like the future of Boulder is looking a lot like Canon City with all the criminals they're about to make.
The ordnance is not law yet, and more ammedments will be considered at follow-up meeting. This MAY be why there was unanimous approval to move forward, as it is not yet the "final" vote, and all council members are looking to do "something" at a minimum. Just a thought on the procedural progression. Who knows if there will be any NO votes at final reading.
Can someone ask the council members to list all of the criminal events in Boulder that make them feel this change in necessary?
Does not need to have occurred in Boulder, council thinks (incorrectly) they can prevent events like Newtown, Columbine and Parkland through legislation before they occur in Boulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Liberal comprehension of common sense = Error 404: Combination NOT found nor possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk