Whats Epps going to do when all of her people get locked up for violating this law? She?s a hug a thug criminal herself she can only bail so many criminals before she out of money. She needs to be gone
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Printable View
Whats Epps going to do when all of her people get locked up for violating this law? She?s a hug a thug criminal herself she can only bail so many criminals before she out of money. She needs to be gone
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This law will not apply to Democrats who own guns right? Just Republicans and Trump supporters.
Well it’s not like Democrats who own guns will mind this.
House bill 24-192... where is this at so far?
Are there going to be open hearings at the state house about it?
Richard
There is more brewing than just the AWB this session. Such as a bill to require all gun owners to carry liability insurance for any 'accidental' injuries from a firearm.
2000+ drug related deaths per year for the last few years in this state but firearms are the public health crisis.
https://youtu.be/oA6FHBCWAyY?si=TKDzQ-P3z0EZcdNd
I assume you mean HB24-1292, the "Prohibit Certain Weapons Used in Mass Shootings" bill?Quote:
Originally Posted by APEXgunparts
It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee on February 13, 2024. A fiscal note was just completed on it, so it should have a hearing relatively soon, although their public schedule only goes out to March 12, 2024 and it isn't on the schedule.
I'm sure RMGO's Ian Escalante will send out an email when the bill goes up for public hearing.
If that’s true, which I don’t know anything about, one need not look any further than the “class” of those drug related deaths… if they were all from the “net producer” class, instead of being in the “net consumer” class, there would be a bigger government intervention. I’d imagine the fact it is the way that it is, the elite and elected are secretly “for” those deaths to ease the burden of supporting those individuals later in their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
You say that like it's a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawin
An easy-to-understand summary of proposed Colorado firearm related bills:
https://youtu.be/QErWV8hhK3Y?si=tua6LLdQq0Zg6aXx
I can confidently say, I don’t do drugs and am in the net producer class. That is all :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
He lost me as soon as he said his favorite Colorado resident is Dudley Brown. I still watched through to the end and found that he barely scratched the surface on the anti-gun bills in our state legislature, but he definitely took time to mention RMGO twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
As much as we hate the fact RMGO is about all we have in our corner.
NRA is combat ineffective.
This thread should be in politics.
I think the Colorado State Shooting Association was behind the overturning of the first Boulder assault weapons ban and a couple other recent anti gun laws in Coilorado.
Agreed. Moving it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
I think the Staff chose to leave it in General DIscussion initially to help ensure the widest visibility. But yeah, it's time to move it. I'll leave a re-direct out there for 2 days.
There never seems to be enough tar and feathers.
I actually bought some guns that might end up being on the naughty list, more collector/demonstrator than 'user' guns. I'm not actually sure how many ARs I have, considering stripped lowers that I hoarded like a squirrel awhile back. As part of that I threw some money at RMGO.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
I hate the anti-gunners so much that I will make them have to deal with Dudley. We are at the end times and like in the movie "The Kingdom" there is a line that they will "let loose their most talented" operatives- well, I can't be any less cordial that sticking Dudley on them. Hopefully he is as effective against Democrats as he is bullying GOPers.
https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00327...40319/29/15686
Listen to this bill in house judiciary committee live
That idiot talking about how to make a bomb!?
Shut him up.
I submitted a written testimony.
I am sure it will convince them that this legislation is not a viable solution to violence and they will drop it.
It passed out of committee 7-3
This is my surprised face.
Trick question:
We are under Democratic rule….did you expect anything less?
Trying to remember what they did last year. Did the ban make it out of committee and was it voted down in the house?
Never made it out of committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
Does anybody know if the committee members are the same or different than last year?Quote:
Originally Posted by rtr
Epps and Hernandez need to go they are bad news for Colorado, even though I think this state is beyond saving.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Committee members are different. Two no votes from last year are gone replaced by "more progressive" votes this year per the gazette.
The draconian fines and felony are gone amended to a misdemeanor and $300 fine.
Still awful.
Remember, Hernandez was not elected, he was "appointed"
At least SCOTUS is 6:3.
That said, RMGO is horrible at writing a winner, I honestly don't think they are capable of a Supreme Court case.
If they pass this and Polis doesn't veto it would this pretty much void the current lawsuits against Superior and Boulder County?
The court ordered an injunction against the Superior and Boulder County bans so not sure why they wouldn't do so if this gets passed.
How old is assault weapons, ban due at the federal circuit level? Assault weapons bands seem to come mainly from states where the federal circuit will back them up and keep the bands in place. That means that there is often not a split in the circuits where one says the bans are good the other says the bans are bad. Could the circuit that Colorado is in give us that?
I have a feeling that would take at least two years to work its way through, hopefully we can get SCOTUS to act before that
Sadly . . . this state is firmly in control of the morons. This will pass and Polis will sign. I don't see any way it gets stopped.
I'm not confident at all that there is a path back to sanity here. Too many family committments to leave at this point. I guess it's small solace that there isn't registration/confiscation . . . yet. I'm sure they'll get to it.
So what is on the shopping list since there will be a few months to stock up?
You don?t buy when the prices are high. You sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
Yup, I?m stuck here for the foreseeable future as well. I wish I could leaveQuote:
Originally Posted by Ramsker
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...ional-gun-ban/
Dave Kopel's legal argument against the bill.
He is likely to get involved in the challenges brought against it. Very sharp guy and has argued in front of the Supreme Court in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
I think another good analysis would the be an assessment of the the number of "assault weapons" in public hands, and the percent of those firearms used in crime versus the percent held by sane, moral and responsible citizens.
I also like analogies supporting the restriction of home high-speed internet just because some deviants use it for child pornography. Same level of logic as shown in these gun control bills.
Dear Colorado Democrats,
Fuck Off
Quote:
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.
This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.
Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.
Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
42 U.S.C. ?1983 is where the real meat and potatoes is. It also pays for attorney fees.
18 U.S.C. ?242 is laughable, in that it will never, ever, ever, be enforced, and they know it.
Just letting you know how to improve your threats ;)
Quote:
****SAMPLE****
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently a 6:3 conservative majority, the time could not be better for us to bring a case and forever foreclose on your ability to introduce legislation like this, ever again.
Please give us standing while the Supreme Court is so strongly in my favor. The language of this bill, which includes assertions such as "hypermasculinity", is written without factual support, and in a way that strongly favors court intervention and condemnation, resulting in a devastating precedential opinion for your cause. Granted, it will take a few years, during which time you'll pat yourself on the back.
So, surprisingly, I encourage you, the legislators, to ignore the future risk to your cause and vote "YES". While this may induce a temporary infringement on my rights, if we have to fight it inevitably, I much prefer to do so now, and with such a poorly written bill before us. I know you intend to ignore the rest of the testimony today, but know that your moment of unjustified back-patting will be short lived.
While the inevitable case work their way up to the Supreme Court, this bill will temporarily infringe on the rights of millions of legal, law abiding gun owners. In that same period of time, pursuant to DEA stats, more than 6,400 Coloradoans will have died from drug overdoses, of which an estimated 4,000 people will be from Fentanyl alone.
What effort do you serve the state with this bill, other than consuming the time of the attorney general in the defense - and loss - of the forthcoming 42 U.S.C. ?1983 deprivation of rights litigation, which guarantees all of our attorney's fees will be paid?
As much as it pains me to say it, please vote YES so that the Supreme Court will have the most absurd legislation before it to finalize precedential law. I may hate this bill, but fortunately, I am more patient than the drafters of it.
****SAMPLE****
Prices arent high. You can order anything you want to an FFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
The issue is... if courts dont stop it, it wont be a matter of price... it will be a matter you can no longer buy/sell it. Price is irrelevant. If you dont buy before you wont get it.