Been a long time since I posted here, but things are heating up again. Didn't see this posted anywhere else.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_3...ault-rifle-ban
They are just starting to talk about this, but this is not ok.
Printable View
Been a long time since I posted here, but things are heating up again. Didn't see this posted anywhere else.
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_3...ault-rifle-ban
They are just starting to talk about this, but this is not ok.
Grano’s quote in the article is contradictory. These people don’t even know what they don’t like.
Will write more later.
Disarm the hippies!
At least that garbage piece of “journalism” educated me about bump stocks. Apparently a bump stock is used to turn a “non-assault” weapon into an “assault weapon.
It's officially on tonight's agenda starting at 6PM...
Attachment 73571
Attachment 73572
Are they aware they don't have the authority to do it per the state.
Did that every matter to a bed-wetting liberal?Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
Doesn't City and County of Denver have one?Quote:
Originally Posted by WETWRKS
Denver's was only upheld due to the Meyers Decision...Quote:
Originally Posted by johngraves2
https://www.rmgo.org/news/news-archi...court-decision
Sorry to link to RMGO, but they have the best synopsis
https://www.denverpost.com/2006/06/0...regulate-guns/
Boulder has no such protection, as the State predates the founding of Boulder.
I see, Makes sense.
they want to ban something that has never had any negative effect on their city?
I dont even think an AR-15 has been used in a mass shooting in Boulder, let alone any shooting.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AR 15s are rarely used in any type of criminal episode. They just gain fame in recent active shootersQuote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
Supressors as well by the look of it.
Maybe I should get into the AK platform more
There is an AR-57 in an evidence locker, some where.Quote:
Originally Posted by KevDen2005
I'm not cool enough to up my game that far...plus breaking into evidence lockers I believe is frowned upon or borderline illegalQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Given the documented supremacy of the state preemption clause over cities not named Denver, I am not even sure what they are trying to accomplish other than some more progressive verbal masterbation.
Also, Denver's ban is really just a mag ban. A semi rifle only becomes a scary assault rifle if a 15+ magazine is inserted (and maybe possessed at the same time)
Ok, so this paragraph is problematic because it's inherently contradictory.Quote:
Added Grano, "We believe that it's constitutionally defensible to have an assault weapons ban. Denver has had one for a long time. Coupling it with high-capacity magazine bans is important ... and bump stock bans are being considered in municipalities across the country as well, because, of course, they can convert (non-assault) weapons into assault weapons."
First, she posits they can ban "assault weapons", which is an undefined and nebulous term. But then she states that bump stocks convert non-"assault weapons" into "assault weapons".
My questions are:
what is an "assault weapon" in Grano's mind, and how does she classify them as such?
what weapon make and model which is a non-"assault weapon" accepts bump stocks?
why are the non-"assault weapons" classified as such?
do "assault weapons" without bump stocks get more.. assaulty, if they are fitted with a bump stock?
The logic in her statement simply doesn't follow reality. It's like in her mind, there are assault weapons by birth and assault weapons by reassignment surgery, but without removing the dangly bits which clue everyone in that they are not, in fact, "assault weapons"? Great, now I gotta think up a female Thai name for my carbine.
Is it possible to defend oneself with an "assault weapon"?
And increase its power! Damn, if only I had known.Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...lt-weapons-ban
Wow! This Jill Grano is a real piece of work. She must be new on the council, as her name does not ring a bell.
Quote:
"The federal government is not taking action on an issue I feel is really important," said Jill Grano, a Boulder City Councilwoman who proposed the ban at Tuesday's city council meeting. "And it's up to states and municipalities to be leaders in gun control."
Grano said the council would hash out details about what weapons would be banned under the proposal and how it would be enforced.
"I recognize that those are sort of catch-all terms," said Grano. "I hope that we'll include any sort of semi-automatic weapon in our definition of assault weapons, but we will be seeking advice from our city attorney and his staff on what’s legally defensible."
While Boulder begins the discussion on an assault weapons ban, Denver has had one in place since 1989. Grano said they will use Denver as a starting point, but she hopes to create a stricter policy.
The I guess nobody mentioned preemption to them, because the discussion with the city attorney is going to be pretty short.
They do know that people own guns in Boulder, don't they?
One things for certain, if Boulder gets it's way, most every other large city in the state will be pushing the same thing.
and they wont like the result it garners from gun owners. This is a constitutional infringment upon our 2A rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
I can't get to paralegal school and law school fast enough.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Heard this morning that they don’t plan to go forward with this.
Shocking Boulder would propose this.[Sarcasm2]
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_3...ault-rifle-ban
Not terribly surprising...Quote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
Bolded text by me.Quote:
Originally Posted by from thedenverchannel article linked above
Is this a crafty Trump statement, or is this a caving? Because "devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns" are already regulated.
Hopefully, it's the former, and he's playing the dims for fools, and not a harbinger of policy shifts to come.
That's not what my ears heard... https://bouldercolorado.gov/boulder8/city-council-video-player-and-archiveQuote:
Originally Posted by ray1970
8 out of 8 council members agreed to move forward on the issue while taking silencers off the list.
Probably a useless gesture in terms of coming from a Joe Citizen like me, but I already contacted State AG Office this morning highlighting that the proposed actions are in direct conflict with CRS 29-11.7-103:
Regulation - Type Of Firearm - Prohibited.
A local government may NOT enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or
possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any
such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and
unenforceable.
From the Meyers Decision:
"The City argues that regulation of assault weapons and Saturday night specials is a purely local issue based on the unique characteristics of Denver described above. Further, the City's ordinance banning assault weapons has been in effect since 1989, while the sale of Saturday night specials has been banned since 1975. The State has never chosen to legislate in this area. The State responds that this area, like all gun control, is an area of mixed state and local concern and that the state statute preempting conflicting City ordinances predominates.
I hold for the City on this issue. Subsection (a) of the assault weapons ordinance states the City Council's findings as to why assault weapons pose a threat to the health, safety and security of the citizens of Denver and that the increasing use of assault weapons for criminal activities has resulted in a record number of related homicides and injuries to both citizens and law enforcement officers. Like open carry, there is little need for statewide uniformity given the unique characteristics of Denver, and the impact of the ordinances on people living outside of Denver is minimal. The exceptions under the assault weapons ban allow the legitimate transportation of weapons by nonresidents through Denver, and the ban on Saturday night specials only applies to sales by dealers within the City and County of Denver. My evaluation of the totality of the circumstances is that Denver's interest in limiting the impact of assault weapons and Saturday night specials in Denver far outweighs the State's insubstantial interest in uniformity of gun control laws, especially since the State has never chosen to legislate in this arena before.
For the reasons stated above, I find the State has failed to demonstrate a significant interest in requiring every city and town to allow assault weapons and Saturday night specials. Thus, I conclude that the City has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that C.R.S. §29-11.7-103, insofar as the state relies on it to preempt the ordinances at issue here, is an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of the City and County of Denver as guaranteed by Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution"
My reading of this does indicate that a local government entity like a home rule city such as Boulder does have the ability to enact like ordinances similar to Denver's.
For whatever reason, its is my understanding (I am not a lawyer) that Boulder does NOT have the same home rule rights as Denver. If so, they would already tried this sort of thing many times in the past. There a bunch of new members on the council, and I am not surprised that the topic has reared up again. If the exceptions allowing the legitimate transportation of the supposedly banned weapons by nonresidents through the municipality, it would a least keep the stupid from impacting those of use who must travel through Boulder, but have no say in its laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
What's missing from the above is a class 1 felony and 10 year minimum sentence for anyone trying to violate the above law. You know, the kind of punishments they apply to us serfs.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
O2
Same boat - I'm not a laywer. I THINK it had something to do with the fact that the city of Denver existed before Colorado was a state.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
O2
The funny thing is that so did Boulder, Golden, etc. There is something more to it beside just date of the city, I am just not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
On the topic of concealed carry in Boulder Open Space from the Bouler City Attorney Tom Carr:
This is a complex area of Colorado law. Under the Colorado Constitution, home rule cities such as Boulder have an exclusive right to legislate over matters of local concern. The Colorado Supreme Court has never decided whether the regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide or local concern. There was one case involving Denver on which the court split 4 to 4. The attorney general ruled that this meant that the case had no precedential effect...
Yet, the rules for firearms on City of Boulder Open Space (straight from the website) read...Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Guess what Article 12 of Title 18 of the CRS is? Yup, the Colorado CCW law. Carr already knows the answer, but they are hoping that if the throw enough shit against the wall, maybe something will stick.Quote:
Discharging or carrying firearms (concealed or otherwise), crossbows, fireworks, explosives or projectile weapons of any kind are prohibited except as expressly mandated by Article 12 of Title 18 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended.
If Boulder was truly able to disregard state law and restrict concealed carry on city property, the sign going into the council chambers would say more than just "No Open Carry".
I don't like what Boulder is trying to do, I am just trying to understand why they think they have a leg to stand on in hopes someone more legally savvy than I can do something to stop it.
Yes! +1000Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Legal experts please chime in!
The City Council would have possessed the votes to do this after ANY mass shooting since 2003, but never did. What has changed that they now think they have some POTENTIAL legal traction?
"They" don't need a leg to stand on. "They" are playing off Emotions, feels and every other text book liberal buzz word.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Are those buzzwords or what happens when you tap your foot inside a bathroom stall at the airport?Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo