Haven't read the law, but the competition exemption could easily be turned into a requirement to store on site of the range. I think other countries do that, which of course will be pointed to as an example.
Printable View
Haven't read the law, but the competition exemption could easily be turned into a requirement to store on site of the range. I think other countries do that, which of course will be pointed to as an example.
And the typically smug bravado of the left:
F rmgo and fudley, but I would love to see them decimate City of Boulder in a lawsuit and get other existing laws revoked, as well.Quote:
Grano, the councilwoman who proposed this ban in the first place, issued a response: "Thank you for communicating this threat. I am sure that suing a home rule city for enacting common sense legislation that the majority of Americans support and that has been upheld elsewhere in the state and nation, at the same time as our children are being mauled down in their schools by assault weapons, will provide excellent publicity for your organization."
I agree. Again if this moves forward other cities will do the same thing as Boulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
OK legal eagles- Would such a law be enforceable on non-Boulder residents who are passing through town?
Not if you're a competitive shooter, apparently.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
Sent from somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Other countries don't have a BOR, Constitution or Second Amendment.
Didn't stop anyone from starting sentences with "but in Australia..."
City Council meeting is Thursday at 6:00, I plan on being there.
A wiser person would shut it down with Yes BUT in America. However the left always goes to the alinsky playbook with... You're DeflectingQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I'll be there. Stay cool and represent yourself well, no matter how maddening some of this crap is.
Here are some details from a 3/31 Boulder Daily Camera article.
Boulder seeks to
1) ban possession of assault weapons not already owned by residents,
2) require registration with Boulder Police Department for existing owners of assault weapons,
3) ban outright the possession of magazines with greater than 10-round capacity, and
4) ban outright the possession of bump stocks.
"How does the proposed law define "assault weapons"? As City Attorney Tom Carr has drafted it, "assault weapons" are defined as:
• All semiautomatic rifles that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and that have any of the following characteristics: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock; a folding or telescoping stock; or any protruding grip or other device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.
• All semi-automatic center-fire pistols that have any of the following characteristics: the capacity to accept a magazine other than in the pistol grip or any device to allow the weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.
• Any firearm which has been modified to be operable as an assault weapon as defined by the city, plus any part or combination or parts designed to convert a firearm into an assault weapon"
"(Boulder City Attorney) Carr has recommended exemptions for weapons owned by police, federal officers, military personnel; holders of federal firearms licenses, stamps or permits; and competitive shooters who are members of organized groups that gather for the purpose of competition."
Ask them. With an anti-gun police chief how would Boulder plan on handling this item.
Anyone found in violation of that would be first "educated and informed" by police,
Please clarify what they mean by Educated and Informed. Who will be educating them and what will they Inform them of?
Anyone found in violation of that would be first "educated and informed" by police,
I am firmly opposed to this. And if it becomes law, I am firmly opposed to any exemptions for military and police and government officials. What makes them special? Nothing, they are not less dangerous than us normal folk. Likely more dangerous, as these are the people the 2nd ammendment was designed to protect us from.
Even if you are not a Boulder resident, if you have the time you could attend, to show support and add to the numbers.
I retired from the military. I despise these carve-outs, exemptions and exceptions. These idiots in Boulder pull this crap all the time depending on whatever the current “media push” happens to be. These proposals to be discussed are a waste of time and symbolic at best. I’m part of militia now and don’t see a carve-out, exemption or exception. I wonder why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Are there any legal experts that can chime in here?
Everything I've read about this proposal seems to violate state law.... Unless it's a matter of local concern. How can they prove it's a local concern? Is there some kind of standard?
And how the hell can they just pass illegal legislation like this without the state courts smacking them upside the head, if it is indeed illegal?
Denver was given a pass by the courts as well as Vail has been able to maintain an assault weapons ban. They are basing their conclusions on this. Yes, what they are proposing goes against state law, it will be interesting to see if the state does anything about it, the State AG has been silent on the issue. I'm guessing they wont and it will come down to private lawsuits.Quote:
Originally Posted by boxy
My first attempt to get a response from the AG office resulted in a callback from a clueless low-level staffer. I do have another acquaintance contact who works there, but the gentleman in question's area of expertise is in an entirely different area, and is 90% certain to be supportive of any such bans. However, he may be able to provide a POC for more substantial discussion than the previous attempt.
For your reading displeasure.
Vomit...
For anyone going to speak here is some information from the MD shooting that you could reference.
“I received this in my e-mail inbox from a friend. Those from MD can tell us all if this is true. Looks legitimate to me, at least the first couple on the list.
“Even the smartest person in the world could never have predicted this, right? And certainly not our lawmakers.
What DIDN’T stop Maryland’s school shooting:
- Maryland’s assault weapon ban
- Maryland’s 10-round magazine limit
- Maryland’s universal background check requirement
- Maryland’s law requiring an exhaustive application process to obtain a permit to purchase a handgun
- Maryland’s law prohibiting purchase of more than one firearm per month
- Maryland’s law requiring handgun registration
- Maryland’s law requiring licensing of handgun owners
- Maryland’s extremely limited approval of concealed carry permits
- Maryland’s refusal to honor any concealed carry permit from another state
- Laws against carrying without a permit
- Gun free zone laws
- Laws against discharging a firearm in public
- Laws against attempted murder
Even the Federal law didn’t stop the shooter:
- prohibiting handgun possession for people under 21 (makes one wonder if a new law prohibiting purchase of a rifle by anyone under 21 would work)
What DID stop Maryland’s school shooting:
An armed person at the scene who engaged the shooter in less than a minute. Who would have thought that a good guy with a gun could stop a bad guy with a gun.
Where is the uproar? No CNN, no vigil & no student parades.”
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Each day it becomes more and more obvious there really is no law.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
Even if gun control is good policy, how does one obey with the patchwork of contradicting Fed, state, and local laws? I can't think of a single other thing that is more arbitrarily and inconsistently regulated.
I'll be there
And 99% of the people who start with that preamble have no idea what they actually did in Australia, how they were able to do it, and what the results actually were. Russia has even stricter laws, I like to point out. New Zealand still allows modern sporting rifles and they've not had a single mass shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
You can call and respectfully voice your opposition to this proposal: 303-441-3002
Related, apparently Merriam-Webster's decided to change their definition of "assault weapon" as well. http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/...land-shooting/
I have to dispute that article. They state that all guns are designed to assault something. My guns are defensive in nature.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Sort of OT, but I like this guy's attitude. Since there are so many (like Boulder) going after gun rights, it's time to stop playing defense and go on the offense.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/03/g...n-petersen-wan
"If they talk about repealing the Second Amendment, let's push in the opposite direction. The best defense is a good offense so let's talk about repealing the NFA and the Hughes Amendments."
Those idiots always and on purpose conflate purpose with use.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
A guns function is to safely and effectively convert potential chemical energy into kinetic energy. Nothing more. What you do with thst function is up to you.
The owner of Bison Tactical in Boulder posed the following question.. If a "Home Rule" city like Denver, Vail or Boulder can ban firearms despite the states pre-emption laws and the state does not step in to stop it then this means that any other home rule city should be able to revoke the states background check law and the magazine limit law...
Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Fred is good people.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
Sent from somewhere
Just a thought guys, if you carry everywhere, I would leave your gun at home or in your car. As a reminder, you cannot conceal carry in any public building with a security checkpoint. I wouldn't be surprised if they put in a security checkpoint to suppress the voices that they don't want to hear.
add Deerfield, IL to that list of towns going after guns and gun rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
This could potentially be Boulder's fate if people dont show up to that meeting this week.
https://t.co/mpQprKxdIl?amp=1
https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2018/...city-magazines
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It will not matter how many people show up on the pro-gun side, the council members have already decided how they will vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
I am not saying don't go, all of you that can, should show up and speak if allowed.
We saw this with the mag ban. Assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
Quote:
Originally Posted by wctriumph
Sad but true.Quote:
Originally Posted by vossman
Not just city state level, but I'm out school district as well.
Yep. Even though the halls of the Capitol were flooded with opposition to the new gun control laws and the only people who they could get to talk in favor of them were people from out of state, country, or a Liberal police chief from Golden who is a flaming [pileoshit]. I was there on March 4th, 2013, and every single person who signed up to speak in opposition of those laws were denied their 3 minutes of speaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by vossman
A sad spectacle of indifferent leadership.
This month Boulder, next month Golden, Lakewood, Thornton, Littleton, Aurora, Ft. Collins...
Ayup, me too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squeeze
I had faith in the political system until then.
"1 person, 1 vote" actually meant something to me until then.
Here's an idea: When this passes, take your gun/etc out of the city. Go get a name tag, name it "Juan" or the like, attach it to your gun, and bring it back into the city. Tell them it's an undocumented immigrant (who *nudge nudge* is thinking of voting Democrat), and remind them of their sanctuary city status.