SENATE BILL 13-196: CONCERNING THE "ASSAULT WEAPON RESPONSIBILITY ACT".

Hope this isn't a repeat. Here is a link to the backdoor assault weapons ban the Dems are trying to push through.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...ile=196_01.pdf

Some highlights


This makes any semi-auto and/or rifled shotgun an “Assault Weapon”.
Technically Biden’s double barrel falls outside this definition.
Since it can fire a second projectile without being loaded by a pump action.



(6) "SHOTGUN" MEANS A FIREARM WITH ONE OR MORE BARRELS
THAT IS:
(a) DESIGNED OR REDESIGNED, MADE OR REMADE, OR INTENDED
TO BE FIRED FROM THE SHOULDER;
(b) DESIGNED OR REDESIGNED, MADE OR REMADE, AND INTENDED
TO USE THE ENERGY OF THE EXPLOSION IN A FIXED SHOTGUN SHELL TO
FIRE THROUGH A SMOOTH BORE EITHER A NUMBER OF BALL SHOT OR A
SINGLE PROJECTILE FOR EACH PULL OF THE TRIGGER; AND
(c) LOADED MANUALLY BY PUMP ACTION.




It also redefines Castle Doctrine.

(2) (a) NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (1) OF
THIS SECTION, A PERSON IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES OR DAMAGES
OCCURRING WITHIN A DWELLING RESULTING FROM THE DISCHARGE OF AN
ASSAULT WEAPON BY THE PERSON IF THE PERSON REASONABLY BELIEVED
THAT HE OR SHE WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF OR HERSELF OR ANOTHER
OCCUPANT OF THE DWELLING FROM ANOTHER PERSON WHO WAS ABOUT TO
USE PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST THE PERSON OR ANOTHER OCCUPANT.
(b) NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH (a) OF
THIS SUBSECTION (2), A PERSON WHO OWNS, OBTAINS, OR POSSESSES AN
ASSAULT WEAPON IS LIABLE FOR ALL INJURIES AND DAMAGES OCCURRING
OUTSIDE OF THE DWELLING RESULTING FROM THE DISCHARGE OF AN
ASSAULT WEAPON BY THE PERSON.

Sadly, too many members don't bother with the L&P section, which is why I posted it in GD.

As a California resident who is moving to Colorado in two weeks, this bill concerns me. I have a semi-auto 12g, a semi-auto .22lr rifle, and two AR lowers. So.. according to this bill, those will all be considered assault weapons of mass destruction, except for one of my AR's that I may plan on making a 300AAC pistol just because I can. Ugh, I will be happy to help vote out these supposed representatives in 2014.

Also, my first post on this board!

I'm surprised there isn't more conversation about this bill. Have you read it!? It will affect so many people and is absurd! I encourage everyone to contact gun shops, pawn shops, FFL dealers in Colorado, corporate offices of Gander, Cabelas, Bass Pro, etc. to make them aware (just in case they aren't) of how they will be affected, if this passes. They will most likely quit or shut down the firearms section of their stores.

Here are some points:
A person (think FFL dealer, since private sales will be banned w/HB 1229) who sells or transfers an assault weapon is deemed to be aware that assault weapons are sought after by and are useful for criminals, mass killers, and those with criminal intent, but are RARELY NECESSARY for lawful purposes. And of the extreme likelihood that [it] WILL BE USED in a crime or WILL RESULT in injury or death.

Sellers, distributors (Gander, Cabelas, Walmart, pawn shops, gun shops, etc.) or manufacturers..are liable for all injuries and damages from the third party who discharges the assault weapon.

“Because of the dangerous nature of assault weapons” they should only sell transfer or distribute them “after receiving sufficient communication and information to have reasonable grounds to believe that the weapon will not be possessed or used by a person who may use it unsafely or unlawfully.” They are going to need to have ESP or a psychic on staff!

Bad bill. Even a pump action Mossberg 500, in production for decades, would be banned. Absolute insanity from the far-left. SHOW UP AT THE CAPITOL TOMORROW TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THESE BILLS!

We will also be held liable if someone breaks in and steals our guns to use. This is like someone stealing my car and holding me liable for the damage if they crash, since I should've known better and stored it in a safer method.

Also, this bill talks about surrendering assault weapons. We can surrender them to an FFL dealer who can charge a fee to accept them or a law enforcement agency who can also charge a fee. Why would they even mention surrendering them unless they are anticipating people not wanting to risk the consequences of a thief taking and using them and us being held liable.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks in a lot of the forums I've been frequenting are convinced that this is a 'done deal' and have given up already. It sounds like we need to persuade ONE senator at this point, but many are convinced that the way the politics game is played, they know that these will pass by -one- senator's vote.

I don't think we should give up, because we're still in the "possible" side of things. Humans can be convinced and persuaded, and that's that. So we have to try until we can't try anymore.

It just really doesn't look good.

This ones life will be measured in nano-seconds ifit passes. Runs up against federal law and just normal jurisprdence. Probably unconstitutional at its basic core also and could be used as a template to stop the commerce of anything anywhere.

On the other hand, if they can get it to pass here, they'll ram it thru as many states as they can.

One thing that I have noticed in these bills is that they contain out and out lies. The first is the general statement "that these laws are needed to preserve the safety of the citizens" or something like that. Showing that states with and with out laws like these have non-coorrelateable outcomes would easily prove this false.
The other is the statement specifically in this bill about "useful for criminals, mass killers, and those with criminal intent, but are RARELY NECESSARY for lawful purposes"- now that is an all in out right lie and easily provable. Does any of this incorrect language open up the laws to legal issues?

After talking with a couple of lawyers about this bill, I've learned that if this passes, juries will have to base their decision on these lies being a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpromisedland

After talking with a couple of lawyers about this bill, I've learned that if this passes, juries will have to base their decision on these lies being a fact.

---

They won't have to, but they will be instructed to. The concept of jury nullification isn't very popular with judges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lilpromisedland

We will also be held liable if someone breaks in and steals our guns to use. This is like someone stealing my car and holding me liable for the damage if they crash, since I should've known better and stored it in a safer method.
.

---

With the above thought in mind, I kinda wonder why no one is very interested in the gun safe that I have up for sale. May not totally keep law breakers from getting to the firearms but would sure slow them down in gaining access.

because the law doesn't define Properly Secured and any lawyer worth a damn will say if it was stolen it wasn't properly secured. The fact that the thieves took 3 hours with an angle grinder while you were at work doesn't matter, it should have been properly secured.

/Tinfoil\
I have a suspicion that this bill is a sacrificial offering. It is so poorly written that I think/hope that it was put out there as a barter piece.
Let the moderate Dems vote against this trash to SEEM pro-gun in exchange for their votes on Mag limits and background checks.

I like how it just does away with the current laws that make it null and void.

“Because of the dangerous nature of assault weapons” they should only sell transfer or distribute them “after receiving sufficient communication and information to have reasonable grounds to believe that the weapon will not be possessed or used by a person who may use it unsafely or unlawfully.”

CBI & NCIC APPROVAL cleared the current owner from any criminal issues.
That is what the purpose of UBC was for is it not?