Any early news on what is possibly in store for us over the next couple months in regards to new fitearms legislation?
Printable View
Any early news on what is possibly in store for us over the next couple months in regards to new fitearms legislation?
An article on the Denver Post website describes a ban on semiautomatic weapons that use detachable magazines.
Long read, and a little confusing as to what it is saying, but here it is:
Colorado lawmakers will again seek to ban the sale of certain types of semiautomatic firearms in the coming legislative session, embracing a new approach after more sweeping assault weapons bans died in the state Capitol in recent years.
The new bill spearheaded by Democrats is aimed at building upon existing gun laws by prohibiting the sale, manufacture or purchase of semiautomatic weapons that use detachable magazines. It is set to be introduced in the early days of the legislative session, which begins Wednesday.
Detachable magazines feed ammunition into the gun and can be swapped out when empty. The measure would also ban rapid-fire trigger activators and bump stocks, which are components that increase the fire rate of semiautomatic rifles and were infamously used in America?s deadliest mass shooting, in Las Vegas in 2017.
The bill, sponsored by Centennial Democrat Sen. Tom Sullivan, would not prohibit possession of the targeted firearms, and anyone who possessed the weapons before a ban went into effect could keep them. The measure would level criminal penalties ? as well as the loss of licensure ? against sellers who violated it.
Sullivan cast the bill as a way to enforce the state?s 11-year-old ban on high-capacity magazines ? which, he said, are still sold in Colorado despite the prohibition. The components were used in both the Boulder King Soopers shooting and the Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, Sullivan said.
?So instead of walking into the King Soopers with multiple magazines that (the shooter) just switched out and kept on firing, he would either have to stop and manually reload, which gives law enforcement and the public the ability to take some kind of an action ? or he would have to walk in there with multiple AR-style weapons with attached magazines,? said Sullivan, whose son, Alex, was killed in the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting, in an interview.
The proposal is not a ban on certain semiautomatic rifles referred to as assault weapons, though its parameters would prohibit the sale of a wide swath of high-powered guns colloquially considered to be in that category. Sullivan has previously opposed efforts by Democratic lawmakers to ban assault weapons at the state level, and one such attempt passed the House before dying in the Senate last spring.
Sullivan reiterated his opposition to a state-level assault weapons ban, though he said he supported a nationwide prohibition.
Those types of firearms could still be sold under his bill, albeit in different form: If manufacturers and gun owners want to continue selling and using the weapons, Sullivan said, they would need to adjust to firearms that can only be loaded slowly, bullet by bullet, from the top of the weapon ? not through detachable magazines.
Sullivan criticized firearm manufacturers and dealers for continuing to sell high-capacity magazines in the state, and he questioned why law enforcement had not done more to proactively crack down on their sale. The effort to ban bump stocks comes after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Trump administration ban on the components, which drew national scrutiny after the Las Vegas mass shooter fired more than 1,000 bullets in 11 minutes in 2017.
The proposal does not cover standard handguns or shotguns, though the prohibition would include the type of pistol used in the Boulder King Soopers shooting that left 10 people dead in March 2021.
Triston Young, left, and Zack Hoover, center, with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association, stand in front of what they say are 30,000 signed petitions against House Bill 24-1292, a proposed assault weapons ban, outside the Old State Library room at the Colorado Capitol in Denver on March 19, 2024. (Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post)
Triston Young, left, and Zack Hoover, center, with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Association, stand in front of what they say are 30,000 signed petitions against House Bill 24-1292, a proposed assault weapons ban, outside the Old State Library room at the Colorado Capitol in Denver on March 19, 2024. The bill passed the House but later died in the Senate. (Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post)
The bill is a new approach to limiting the type of high-powered weapons frequently used in mass shootings, which have become a grimly frequent occurrence in Colorado and in America. While other states have banned certain semiautomatic rifles outright, Sullivan said a similar expansion of a magazine ban hasn?t been used elsewhere.
It also represents the latest step of years of Colorado Democrats? attempts to better regulate gun sales. Last year, lawmakers passed a bill to require that gun dealers hold a state license, on top of the existing federal requirement. (Gun dealers who sell weapons prohibited by Sullivan?s bill could lose their state license if it becomes law.) Legislators also directed additional money to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to better investigate illegal sales of guns and gun components.
The new bill will be co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Andrew Boesenecker and Meg Froelich. Boesenecker co-sponsored the state licensure bill last year, while Froelich and Sullivan backed the measure to increase the investigative bureau?s budget to pursue illegal gun sales.
?What we?re able to recognize pretty clearly is that particular kinds of firearms, when paired with a high-capacity magazine, have a lethality that are just unparalleled,? Boesenecker said.
The Capitol?s minority Republicans, who have uniformly opposed gun control bills in recent years, almost certainly will oppose the measure. Republican lawmakers have railed against previous legislation, including the more sweeping assault weapons ban proposals, as government overreach and infringements on the Second Amendment.
On Friday, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners executive director Ian Escalante said his group is ?absolutely going to oppose this bill,? which he argued violated the U.S. Constitution. He said the organization will probably file a lawsuit challenging it, should it pass.
?Realistically, you might as well try to ban these firearms,? he said, referring to Sullivan?s bill as a de facto ban on the weapons. ?All manufacturers are going to have to remanufacture these firearms and make them with fixed magazines. I don?t know how that would work.?
Sullivan noted that Colorado voters in November passed a new tax on gun and ammunition sales ? which, he argued, showed voters? priorities.
?The people of the state of Colorado have mandated that our legislators do something about the public health crisis that is gun violence, and that?s what we?re going to do,? he said. ?It?d be great if we had partners in that from the minority party, from the industry. I haven?t seen that (yet), going on my seventh year down here at the General Assembly.?
So in summary it's a ban on any detachable magazine semiauto rifles?
Is it just rifles or any semi-auto with a detachable mag?
Quote:
The proposal does not cover standard handguns or shotguns...
... but would appear to include guns like the Mini-14, Remington 740-series, Marlin Camp 9/45, Henry Homesteader, etc. The M1 Garand, SKS, and CA OK breakopen ARs would theoretically be acceptable, but who knows with these Karens.
Fuck Karens
Odd that Sullivan had a problem with a blanket assault weapons ban last year but is sponsoring a bill this year which is pretty much the same thing.
Assuming this is because last year was an election year and that is what the underlying motive is.
Frankly, I don't find it odd at all. Standard liberal anti-gun hypocrisy where they say (and I think they actually believe) "I'm 100% supporter of the Second Amendment" and immediately follow up with anti-gun actions. These people don't understand that it's black and white or how their own actions are completely at odds with what they claim to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
Not too worried as Polis wouldn't sign this, it would be devestating to his future run as POTUS. The dems will kill it in a legislative session with this knowledge. For the time being, it's good when their introduction is full-blown-crazy.
THAT SAID,
If there's ever a "soft handed" bill we need to be in full panic mode. That's how they passed more than half a dozen "small bites" last session. Don't look to the sweeping ban, look to the little shit stacked next to it.
https://youtu.be/V7bLkKtG9FI?si=ZA5aNQ2BoSUKWdzN
I'm not sure how I feel about another 2A organization, if we could all unite behind one banner I think it would be a lot more effective. But Ava and Lesley have a nice discussion about the Sullivan legislation.
This is headed towards the California style non-detachable magazines............ so as if the magazine is in place and can not be rapidly replaced with another................. The name escapes me at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
That is what Sullivan wants.
".....If manufacturers and gun owners want to continue selling and using the weapons, Sullivan said, they would need to adjust to firearms that can only be loaded slowly, bullet by bullet, from the top of the weapon ? not through detachable magazines......."
So you can still sell AR's but the magazine can't be readily removed, basically have it pinned in place.
Similiar to the NY SAFE Act in regards to non-detachable magazines. There are all kinds of gimmicks out there to try to speed up reloading, but hopefully we are not talking about those gimmicks come May.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar77
https://youtu.be/Wz_rmunf6kU?si=TkQ2So04lO8Ol0X6
Yes.......... That sort of true nonsense.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
I HATE trying to apply logic and reason to these things.
I HATE EVEN MORE trying to decipher these legal issues thru a poorly written news article.
That said.............. maybe they are going to "grand father" this like the magazines.................. "..anyone who possessed the weapons before a ban went into effect could keep them....."
Which of course is funny because in this same article, they point out the failure of the magazine law to stop their sales.
Some media sources also indicate a ban on under 21 ammo purchase (didn't they already do that?) and all ammo must be behind the retail counter (not in the aisle).
The draconian AWB is to attract the opposition attention so they can get everything else under the wire. Maybe SCOTUS will put an end to the stupidity eventually.
Well the conference to take AWB, and other 2A cases is tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
If they take the cases…. No more AWB.
If they take it.. enough justices understand 2A that they will side with the people and constitution.
Tomorrow is a big day telling us the future
This bill also bans all nfa items. See page 10.
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/defau...25a_003_01.pdf
That's not what that part means, it's not a blanket ban on NFA items. It's amending the existing statute to add in their "rapid fire device" term.Quote:
Originally Posted by RussDXT
Current CRS 18-12-102:
18-12-102. Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon - affirmative defense -
definition
(1) As used in this section, the term “dangerous weapon” means a firearm silencer, machine gun,
short shotgun, short rifle, or ballistic knife.
(2) As used in this section, the term “illegal weapon” means a blackjack, a gas gun, or metallic
knuckles.
(3) A person who knowingly possesses a dangerous weapon commits a class 5 felony. Each
subsequent violation of this subsection (3) by the same person shall be a class 4 felony.
(4) A person who knowingly possesses an illegal weapon commits a class 1 misdemeanor.
(5) It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon, or to the
charge of possessing an illegal weapon, that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of
the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his
duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.
Point 5 there, specifically that last bit about valid permit/license is how NFA items are currently legal in CO and would still be legal even if this stupid bill passes. My cursory understanding is that many other states have similar statutes.
Make no mistake I'm not a fan of the bill, but let's be clear on what it is and isn't. (You'd still be screwed on making say, a new AR SBR or mag fed SBS, but cans and other SBR/SBS/etc would still fly.)
Sullivan is either stupid or evil, or Both. It’s an assault weapon ban. I don’t think there’s any other way to rationally explain it. You can sell a gun today the same gun you can’t sell next time. I guess they are probably saying it’s not an assault weapons band because they know Scotus is going to strike down bans, so they’ll be able to say that their law isn’t affected by what’s coming down.
Yes, there is no reason to like or respect Sullivan.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand
But its a mistake to underestimate the underlying basis of this potential law. Now that you/we/I can read the draft, they are following the NY and CA non-detachable magazine laws described in post #11 and #12.
And yes that is shading, for lack of better term, and yes that is what the Socialists have been doing for years in regards to these harassing gun laws...........
But there is potentially valid excuse that these laws might remain........... They can say with a straight face that "Assault Weapons" aren't banned, simply select semi-auto firearms to be legally sold must have an internal, non-removeable magazine of no more than 15rds.
Thats not a ban, it's simply requiring a modification to the original design.
I dont like it either......... but to be honest......... look left and right in your neighborhood.......... those are the people who voted for this.
And honestly, there are people here in this forum that vote for the Democratic party.
Sullivan and the article makes it sound like a done deal...
Quote:
?I am not running an assault weapons ban. This is not an assault weapons ban. This is an enforcement of the high-capacity magazine that passed in 2013,? State Sen. Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial, said.
Sullivan is sponsoring a bill that he believes would address a gap exposed by 9NEWS Investigates in 2019. Our series, Overloaded, found large-capacity magazines ? the kind that can hold more than 15 bullets ? were sold in parts to try to avoid the ban passed in 2013.
?Because we can't get them to stop selling the high-capacity magazines that would attach for it if you buy a brand new one, it's going to have a magazine that is permanently attached,? Sullivan said. ?Everything you buy from here on out is going to have an attached magazine.?
The bill does not address the issue that the 2013 ban revealed; local sheriffs who are not willing to enforce a ban they disagree with.
?We have people who are elected officials who have deemed that they won't do this, and they continue to get reelected, so those neighborhoods know that this is what's out there, that this is what's going to happen and, you know, they're OK with it,? Sullivan said. ?If you're OK with the loss of life, then, you know, how are we going to do something about this??
He said the bill already has enough co-sponsors in the State Senate to pass out of the Senate. And he said it is likely to go through the committees and floor votes in January, instead of waiting for later in the session. Getting enough support in the House will be easier with a near 2-1 edge of Democrats to Republicans. The Senate has 23 Democrats to 12 Republicans. The House has 43 Democrats to 22 Republicans.
https://www.9news.com/article/news/p...d-2d5986dd5356
New Taxes!
HB25-1044
Local Funding for Vulnerable Road User Protection
A TABOR exempt "fee" that will allow a "city, city and county, or municipality (local government) to generate additional fee-based funding for local transportation system strategies that improve safety for vulnerable road users".
The fee will be "Based on the weight of a passenger car or light truck, and, in the sole discretion of a local government, fuel-efficiency, with fees being higher for heavier motor vehicles and, for motor vehicles in the same weight class, light trucks and, if applicable, less fuel-efficient motor vehicles
Interesting but won't pass
HB25-1068
Malpractice Insurers Gender-Affirming Care Minors
Allows insurers to cancel malpractice insurance on "gender-affirming health-care services".
No Idea this was an issue
HB25-1064
Prohibition on Cultivated Meat
The bill prohibits a person from selling, offering for sale, manufacturing, or distributing cultivated meat (prohibition), which is defined as a food product produced from animal cells that are grown in a laboratory setting in a controlled environment.
Gun Stuff
HB25-1062
Penalty for Theft of Firearms
In current law, the sentencing structure for theft, except for auto theft, is based on the value of the item stolen.
The bill exempts theft of firearms from that sentencing structure and makes theft of a firearm a class 6 felony, regardless of the firearm's value.
HB25-1055
Repeal Firearm Dealer Requirements & State Permit
Repeals a number of items in House Bill 24-1353
The requirement for a firearms dealer (dealer) to obtain a
state firearms dealer permit (state permit) to engage in the
business of dealing in firearms on and after July 1, 2025;
The requirement for the department of revenue to conduct
on-site inspections of state permit holders;
The requirement that a dealer secure firearms in a manner
that prevents members of the public from accessing the
firearms;
Specific requirements for a dealer to report to law
enforcement about suspected straw purchases and firearm
thefts by employees;
The prohibition on a dealer selling or transferring a firearm
outside of the dealer's posted business hours or to a person
who is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled
substance;
The requirement for each dealer and each employee of a
dealer whose position involves handling firearms to
annually complete a training course; and
Minimum qualifications for employees of dealers and the
requirement for employees to submit to background checks.
SB25-003
Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices
Black guns bad!
SB25-034
Voluntary Do-Not-Sell Firearms Waiver
I have no idea what the hell this is...
The bill establishes a process for a person to voluntarily waive the right to purchase a firearm (voluntary waiver).
The bill prohibits attempting to purchase a firearm while subject to a voluntary waiver. Attempting to purchase a firearm while subject to a voluntary waiver is a civil infraction, punishable by a maximum $25 fine.
Sullivan's Bill will include handguns... or does it?
"SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM" MEANS A FIREARM THAT IS NOT A MACHINE GUN AND THAT, UPON INITIATING THE FIRING SEQUENCE, FIRES THE FIRST CHAMBERED CARTRIDGE AND USES A PORTION OF THE ENERGY OF THE FIRING CARTRIDGE TO EXTRACT THE EXPENDED CARTRIDGE CASE, CHAMBER THE NEXT ROUND, AND PREPARE THE FIRING MECHANISM TO FIRE AGAIN, AND REQUIRES A SEPARATE PULL, RELEASE, PUSH, OR INITIATION OF THE TRIGGER TO FIRE EACH CARTRIDGE.
"SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM" INCLUDES A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE, SEMIAUTOMATIC SHOTGUN, OR SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN.
"SPECIFIED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARM" DOES NOT INCLUDE:
-4- SB25-003
1 (A) A FIREARM DESIGNED TO ACCEPT, AND CAPABLE OF
2 OPERATING ONLY WITH, .22 OR LOWER CALIBER RIMFIRE AMMUNITION,
3 UNLESS THE FIREARM HAS A SEPARATE UPPER AND LOWER RECEIVER;
4 (B) A FIREARM THAT IS MANUALLY OPERATED BY BOLT, PUMP,
5 LEVER, OR SLIDE ACTION;
6 (C) A FIREARM THAT HAS A PERMANENTLY FIXED MAGAZINE THAT
7 CANNOT ACCEPT MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION;
8 (D) A SINGLE OR DOUBLE ACTION SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN
9 THAT USES RECOIL TO CYCLE THE ACTION OF THE HANDGUN;
So what does it mean? Seems a gas operated handgun like an AR "pistol" will illegal but normal pistols will be okay... for now.
I'm for 1062..
I'm assuming that 034 voluntarily puts you on the CBI prohibited list? I guess if someone wants to do that more power to them. Maybe we can eventually get to retroactive self abortion?
It won’t be “voluntary”. It will be “volunforced”. Get a speeding ticket. You can pay fine, spend the 10 days in jail…. Or we you can plea to fine and “voluntary” waiving your rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by def90
You want to see you kids after a divorce… guess what judge will make you do!
This is an end run around due process. Make no mistake about it.
It is a law that allows coercion to give up rights.
Each senator or representative may only introduce up to 5 bills, which may be on any topic.
The General Assembly consists of 100 members - 35 Senators and 65 Representatives, so 500 bills.
In 2024 lawmakers introduced 705 bills. That's the most since 2019 when 721 bills were introduced, but far short of the record set in 2003, at 735
The legislators do not even obey their own rules.
No wonder they can not be trusted.
[Coffee]
SB34 should scare the crap out of everyone. This is not just a 2A issue. This a constitutional issue. It is an end-run around the constitution.
Yes, you can "revoke" your "voluntary" waiver... but read the bill..
(5) (a) TO REVOKE A VOLUNTARY WAIVER, A PERSON MUST FILE
7 FOR REVOCATION WITH THE BUREAU. THE BUREAU SHALL VERIFY THE
8 PERSON'S IDENTITY PRIOR TO ACCEPTING THE REVOCATION. THE WAIVER
9 REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE BUREAU ACCEPTS THE
10 REVOCATION.
11 (b) THE BUREAU SHALL NOTIFY EACH CONTACT PERSON OF THE
12 REVOCATION NO LATER THAN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS AFTER THE BUREAU
13 RECEIVES THE REVOCATION REQUEST.
14 (c) THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE BUREAU ACCEPTS THE REVOCATION,
15 AND UNLESS THE PERSON IS OTHERWISE INELIGIBLE TO POSSESS A FIREARM
16 PURSUANT TO STATE OR FEDERAL LAW, THE BUREAU SHALL REMOVE THE
17 PERSON'S INFORMATION FROM THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL
18 BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM AND ANY OTHER FEDERAL OR STATE
19 COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEMS IN WHICH THE PERSON WAS ENTERED AND
20 THAT ARE USED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR OTHERS TO IDENTIFY
21 PROHIBITED PURCHASERS OF FIREARMS, AND THE BUREAU SHALL DESTROY
22 ALL RECORDS OF THE VOLUNTARY WAIVER.
23 (6) THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY ADOPT
24 RULES AS NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION
Notice that revocation is 30 days after CBI accepts the revocation. The operative word is "accepts". What do they have to do to "accept" it.
Wait that is clearly covered...
An un-elected bureaucrat "MAY ADOPT RULES AS NECESSARY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SECTION"
Maybe the process is a 180 day wait to accept it? Maybe something else?
This is the slippery slope to everything. Why not "voluntarily" waive your right to unreasonable searches? I mean you can also revoke the waiver... but then the police can simply search your house for the next 30 days while the voluntary revocation is administratively still in effect. And dont forget, a bureaucrat gets to make the rules how you can revoke your waiver and how long they get to accept your waiver. What about you right to a speedy trial. That is voluntarily waived and you have to jump through hoops to revoke the waiver. Maybe 1A too.
Once they control whe nyou can and can't invoke your rights... even just 2A.... we are screwed.
This is fascism at its peak. It cracking the door open.
Be very scared.....
SB25-034 - is just stupid.
Sent from my SM-A037U1 using Tapatalk
Agreed!Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalobo
Here's a novel idea for waiving your 2A rights (this may seem extreme to some so bear with me):
If you don't want to exercise your 2A rights, don't buy or acquire a firearm.
Pretty simple and avoids the need to involve the legislative process.
As already stated, this isn't about "voluntary" waiving of rights, this is to facilitate coerced waiving of your rights.
According to the wording of the bill, it's about suicide prevention.
If one if feeling like a gun in the mouth is the only option, you can get online and tell the CBI you shouldn't be able to buy one.
Then if you try it anyway, you will be denied and the people on your contact list will be notified and you will be fined $25.
I don't foresee the suicide rate plummeting because of this bill, but if it saves one life, isn't it worth it???
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
If those supporting this legislation actually believe this will help the problem, they're fools. If this is actually their motivation, it's a "feel good" measure with zero focus on the unintended consequences.
What they're failing to consider it that those who are contemplating suicide aren't of the right mind to think to use such a program. Even if they did use it, if the person is truly suicidal, they would find another way to complete the job (intentional overdose, slicing wrists, driving their car off a bridge, jumping off a tall building, etc.). A firearm isn't their only option. If I was suicidal/homicidal (for the record, I'm neither!), I wouldn't let my ability to possess a firearm hinder my goal, and neither will anyone else who is of that mind.
At best this is typical liberal feel good "guns are the root of the problem" thinking. At worst, this is an 'anti-gun with expected forced compliance' measure.
Yea! We can be the sacrificial lamb? he calls it the worst gun law in the US?.
https://youtu.be/DGPGIQuL1uc
Still hoping for a quadfecta of certain on Monday.
I think the inside baseball is that Paul is inherently doesn?t want to sign any thing like this because of the controversial nature, even more Sophie knows it?s going to get smacked down and nullified causing problems with the national campaign.
The bad news is that any damn who replaces him is not going to have any kind of reluctance to sign anti gun laws. We have gone from a red state to one of the worst blue states. It?s only going to get worse as all of those California fire refugees move here with all of their money. I thought about buying a cabin up in the mountains, but this kind of silliness is pushing me to accelerate my plans to get out of the state. The fact that real estate values in Denver have stalled out because of crime and bad management is another reason to pop smoke and get the hell out of here.
The most common method of suicide in Germany is the train.....Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
It is bad when an ICE gets held up for an investigation and then people miss their flights....
While I agree that SB 25-034 is stupid and pretty much a waste of time and effort:Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
Both you and DDT need to slow-your-roll on the this-is the-end-of the-world stuff.......................... it isn't.
This isn't about or will end up being anything close to some forced giving up of your 2A rights.
Thats the red-flag laws............. this is just nonsense.
Besides this will never pass, so this argument is moot.
I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar77
Red flag laws have restrictions around them and they are not "voluntary".
Why would we need a law where someone calls CBI and fills out an on-line form surrendering 2A rights? It makes no sense unless they want to "volun-force" people.
I dont know about anyone on the this forum that needed to call CBI, so that they don't buy a gun.
When I was married, the biggest obstacle to buying a gun was a wife. That was who I had to call for rejection of buying a gun.
If you dont want to buy a gun, simply dont buy one. No need one call CBI.
If you think I am being paranoid, explain the need to the law for me other than "volun-force" people into it.
Keeping that in mind, explain it along with banning sale/manufacture/transfer of EVERY semi auto centerfire rifle in the state.
I'll explain the law.
Bored suburban karen wants to pat themselves on the back for saving someone from suicide, and has a brilliant idea where if they are sad, they can fill out a form that will protect them from the evils of self harm. They applaud their own genius, and hold their head high as they demand to see the manager at their next establishment, because their bag didn't have ketchup packets. Then they return home to chair the HOA, spending the rest of the evening measuing the length of grass blades throughout their neighborhood.
Not everything has a big overarching master plan, unfortunately a tremendous amount of government is exactly the above.
I think the age of stupid and clunky anti-gun laws is over. Whoever they have on the other side, actually understands the firearms and they are playing the long game by passing pieces of legislation that they can eventually link together. They still haven’t quite gotten to the point of realizing or being able to pass a real registration. I think that’s because they realize they’ll never be able to confiscate this many guns. They’ll just make them illegal and have you deal with the consequences, and stop new sales so that after a generation, they’re all gone anyway.. At least for law, abiding people. We still have the same number of guns, but they’ll be more concentrated in actual criminal hands. Won’t that be fun.
The Supreme Court is still angling to take an assault weapons bans and a magazine ban case this next term. I think Paul is a smart enough politician to put the kibosh on this if there is no real gain, and only potential pain for a national run for him. of course, that makes it more likely for the other gun stuff to get through. The gun grabbers have put up the assault weapons bans as a way to make sure that their other stuff actually gets through.
https://completecolorado.com/2025/01...ng-coloradans/
Senate Bill 3 flagrantly violates both the U.S. and Colorado constitutions, the latter of which affirms “the right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property . . . shall be called in question. . .” That the bill would not survive judicial scrutiny seems not to matter at all to the bill’s sponsors, who apparently enjoy throwing taxpayer dollars into losing efforts to legally defend the indefensible.
We should ask people in law enforcement to focus their energies on people who have committed rights-violating crimes or who have threatened to do so. We should not ask people in law enforcement to spend their time and resources hounding people who have harmed no one. With its blanket gun sales bans, Senate Bill 3 is a step in the wrong direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
Lovely that the guy wants to throw the rights of 18-25 year olds into the trash.