All 7 gun bills - updated w/amendments to study

Printable View

02-28-2013, 17:04
lilpromisedland

All 7 gun bills - updated w/amendments to study

From www.graac.webs.com

Study the language of the bills ahead of time, so you know first hand how they will affect you.
The house bills below are the updated versions, which include the passed amendments.

SB 195--CCW training
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...ile=195_01.pdf

SB 196--Assault Weapons ban http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...ile=196_01.pdf

SB 197--No firearms for domestic violence offenders
http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLI...ile=197_01.pdf

HB 1224--Limiting the size of magazines
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1224_ren.pdf

State Affairs Committee (Senate Committee RM 356, third floor of the Capitol):

HB 1226 Prohibiting Concealed Carry on college campus.
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1226_ren.pdf

HB 1228 Background fees (Poll Tax)
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1228_ren.pdf

HB 1229 Universal Background Checks
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cli...e=1229_ren.pdf
02-28-2013, 17:46
Roger Ronas

So the way I read the AWB of the state, an AR15 pistol with a barrel less then 12" long is not an AW.

Roger
03-01-2013, 10:01
losttrail

SB 195 I really have no problem with. Getting a CCW via internet "training" is idiotic. I think a CCW class should mandate range time and classroom time with 'hands on' training.

All the rest need to go to "File 13" as it is clear that NONE of these bills has anything to do with reducing crime or saving lives. These are merely the first steps towards all out registration and confiscation.
03-01-2013, 10:34
robertcolorado2009

SB-196 is not a ban on semi autos, it's liability.
03-01-2013, 11:12
merl

and a setup for a ban. get assault weapon broadly defined in law.
03-01-2013, 11:29
losttrail

Look what Germany is doing: Setting up registration earlier than required by the EU.

http://www.dw.de/national-german-gun...nch/a-16390894

This is what the EU is pushing at the U.N. and Marxist-Muslim Obama is going to use the U.N. Small Arms Treaty as his excuse that he did nothing against the 2A but we must comply with international law.
03-01-2013, 11:44
Roger Ronas

Screw the UN and international law, this is America land of the free.
03-01-2013, 12:07
Jackrabbit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ronas

Screw the UN and international law, this is America land of the free.

Lulz.
03-01-2013, 13:12
Watermagnet

Quote:

Originally Posted by losttrail

SB 195 I really have no problem with. Getting a CCW via internet "training" is idiotic. I think a CCW class should mandate range time and classroom time with 'hands on' training.

All the rest need to go to "File 13" as it is clear that NONE of these bills has anything to do with reducing crime or saving lives. These are merely the first steps towards all out registration and confiscation.

F that...Having to get a "permit" to exercise a right is idiotic. There is already too much red tape and costs associated with concealed carry, you're furthering their agenda by supporting the bill. Also, how is your county requiring an application, back ground check, fingerprints, mug shot and approval for a concealed carry permit not another step towards registration that you disagree with on the other bills?
03-01-2013, 14:29
Clint45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watermagnet

F that...Having to get a "permit" to exercise a right is idiotic. There is already too much red tape and costs associated with concealed carry, you're furthering their agenda by supporting the bill. Also, how is your county requiring an application, back ground check, fingerprints, mug shot and approval for a concealed carry permit not another step towards registration that you disagree with on the other bills?

We seem to be heading perilously close to adopting NY and IL style gun laws within the next few years if this trend continues, where it will be a FELONY with zero tolerance and mandatory minimum sentencing simply for OWNING a firearm in your own home, auto, or place of business without a permit. Zero tolerance and mandatory minimums means that possession equals AUTOMATIC GUILT and no hope of jury nullification . . . don't think that your "Constitutional right" or a trial by jury will dismiss any charges brought against you. A few NorthEastern states have unofficially seceeded from the US years ago, becoming a hostile force intent on attacking the rest of the United States through legislation that will arbitrarily strip all Americans of all their rights . . . don't think this will be limited to the 2nd Amendment.
03-01-2013, 15:39
losttrail

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watermagnet

F that...Having to get a "permit" to exercise a right is idiotic. There is already too much red tape and costs associated with concealed carry, you're furthering their agenda by supporting the bill. Also, how is your county requiring an application, back ground check, fingerprints, mug shot and approval for a concealed carry permit not another step towards registration that you disagree with on the other bills?

Ok, I will agree that I, as a law abiding citizen, should be able to CC or OC anywhere in the U.S. But should there not be some 'minimum' standards that be met? Shouldn't there be a determination as to whether a person carrying is a violent felon? Shouldn't there be some proof of proficiency? Again, we are not the nation we were 50, 75, 100, 200 years ago where nearly every home had at least one firearm.

Take a 21 year old woman who was raised in a home that was anti-gun, never had guns in the home, but for whatever reasons, she now feels that she wants to buy a handgun for protection. Should she just be able to go buy a gun and that's it? On one hand I say 'yes', but then is that fair to her and those around her that she now has a handgun but no clue how to use it?

Do you hunt? Should we abolish the requirement for hunter safety and just let anyone that can hold a gun run around the wilderness wtihout training?

Trust me, I want the governmnet to do three things: Secure our borders, reduce its own size by 95% and leave me alone.

But I do think there need to be some minimums set to protect us from ourselves. It's a tough arguement with no easy answers other than what has been proposed is wrong.
03-01-2013, 23:33
Watermagnet

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxtrot

For those that have never read their constitution, Concealed Carry in Colorado is not a right. Quite specifically, in fact.

It is a revocable privilege in this State.

Flame on! But you might want to do some googling first, you might just be surprised at what you find out.....

I should have articulated my thoughts better...Yes, I know Colorado is not a constitutional carry state, that is part of my frustration. I believe the right to self defense as defined "The Right To Protect One's Person And Property From Injury" (Lectlaw) should not be left up to a "permit" by some arbitrary standards depending upon where you live.

I am not willing to give any ground on these issues because the left will keep attacking and throwing more shit out there hoping some will stick. How many issues have we had in CO with concealed carry owners that qualified online? Yes I googled it, and no I wasn't surprised at what I found. If someone with greater research abilities or resources has more information, I would love to learn more. The bottom line in my opinion is that this bill is another factless emotional attack on gun owners.

@losttrail - Yes, I hunt every year. There was empircal evidence (something the left has yet to prove on any gun control issue) that suggested there was a hunter safety issue per DOW. "Colorado hunters experienced an average of nine fatal and 24 non-fatal hunting accidents each year during the 1960s. Noting this, the Colorado legislature took action and passed the hunter education course completion requirement in 1970. The effect? In the '90s, the averages went down to 1.3 fatal and 11 non-fatal hunting accidents. The latest five years, through 2004, averaged 1.6 fatal and 10 non-fatal hunting accidents"...

And I'm with you 100% on the 3 things you'd like to see from the government, but I'm afraid we're SOL [shithitsfan] Have a great night!
03-01-2013, 23:49
Bandit4142

So according to the AWB my Thompson Encore is now not considered a "Handgun"?? ....... good grief.
03-02-2013, 13:48
68Charger

Quote:

Originally Posted by losttrail

SB 195 I really have no problem with. Getting a CCW via internet "training" is idiotic. I think a CCW class should mandate range time and classroom time with 'hands on' training.

All the rest need to go to "File 13" as it is clear that NONE of these bills has anything to do with reducing crime or saving lives. These are merely the first steps towards all out registration and confiscation.

The issue I have with this line of thinking is that it's no "compromise"... if they're willing to give something in return, maybe I'd support it
fee for background checks waived for CCW permit holders, waiving the background check for CCW permits (once permit is verified), for example...
waiving the fee isn't an issue yet, until they pass the fee bill, and waiving the BGC was already shutdown in this session (how many knew that?)

Otherwise, they are just grabbing power from law-abiding citizens without any regard to them...which just proves they aren't about representing us AT ALL...
03-03-2013, 09:33
lilpromisedland

Study, study, study, so you will have good talking points tomorrow! Especially study SB 196 and the "sticky bills" as they are filled with absurdities. I was surprised at the House committee hearing when it seemed like the Legislature had not even read the bills thoroughly. They seemed to not realize that they were written with so many "unintended consequences."
03-04-2013, 23:13
liberty19

Quote:

Originally Posted by losttrail

Look what Germany is doing: Setting up registration earlier than required by the EU.

http://www.dw.de/national-german-gun...nch/a-16390894

This is what the EU is pushing at the U.N. and Marxist-Muslim Obama is going to use the U.N. Small Arms Treaty as his excuse that he did nothing against the 2A but we must comply with international law.

Get US out of the UN and get the UN out of US!
03-05-2013, 15:59
davsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by losttrail

Ok, I will agree that I, as a law abiding citizen, should be able to CC or OC anywhere in the U.S. But should there not be some 'minimum' standards that be met? Shouldn't there be a determination as to whether a person carrying is a violent felon? Shouldn't there be some proof of proficiency? Again, we are not the nation we were 50, 75, 100, 200 years ago where nearly every home had at least one firearm.

Take a 21 year old woman who was raised in a home that was anti-gun, never had guns in the home, but for whatever reasons, she now feels that she wants to buy a handgun for protection. Should she just be able to go buy a gun and that's it? On one hand I say 'yes', but then is that fair to her and those around her that she now has a handgun but no clue how to use it?

Do you hunt? Should we abolish the requirement for hunter safety and just let anyone that can hold a gun run around the wilderness wtihout training?

Trust me, I want the governmnet to do three things: Secure our borders, reduce its own size by 95% and leave me alone.

But I do think there need to be some minimums set to protect us from ourselves. It's a tough arguement with no easy answers other than what has been proposed is wrong.

A "violent felon" is not legally allowed to own a firearm under current law. I do not think that is a problem.
Current law (C.R.S. 18-12-209) also allows for "emergency" permit issuance. Which would allow an 18 year old to carry for 90 days (with extensions until age of 21) after speaking to the sheriff - no proficiency required.

I do not see why a 21 year old woman should not be able to own a handgun just because she wants to. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. That is the slope we are on (started by women's suffrage) and it is getting worse every year.

I 100% agree with your view of a proper government.
03-05-2013, 16:12
Clint45

Quote:

Originally Posted by davsel

I do not see why a 21 year old woman should not be able to own a handgun just because she wants to. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. That is the slope we are on (started by women's suffrage) and it is getting worse every year.

Wait . . . you think a woman should be allowed to own a handgun but be denied the right to vote???
03-05-2013, 16:45
davsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint45

Wait . . . you think a woman should be allowed to own a handgun but be denied the right to vote???

Yes, of course.
I believe self defense to be an unalienable God given right of all.
The right to vote and govern, however, should be reserved for those who posses a less passionate and emotional sense of reasoning. I believe you can trace the expansion of government control over "what is good for us" to the increase of more emotionally based legislation.
The two "rights" are not related - in my opinion.
03-05-2013, 17:18
Clint45

Sounds like another Liberal troll stirring up shit on the forum, trying to paint Colorado gun owners as backwards bigots. Go back to Noo Yawk City, motherfucker!

Quote:

Originally Posted by davsel

Yes, of course.
I believe self defense to be an unalienable God given right of all.
The right to vote and govern, however, should be reserved for those who posses a less passionate and emotional sense of reasoning. I believe you can trace the expansion of government control over "what is good for us" to the increase of more emotionally based legislation.
The two "rights" are not related - in my opinion.
03-05-2013, 18:10
davsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint45

Sounds like another Liberal troll stirring up shit on the forum, trying to paint Colorado gun owners as backwards bigots. Go back to Noo Yawk City, motherfucker!

Far from it sweet heart.
I take it you disagree with my opinion, but what does my relationship with your mother have to do with this exchange?
And, thank you for an excellent example of what I referred to as "passionate and emotional sense of reasoning."
Well done.
03-05-2013, 18:44
Clint45

Quote:

Originally Posted by davsel

Far from it sweet heart.
I take it you disagree with my opinion, but what does my relationship with your mother have to do with this exchange?
And, thank you for an excellent example of what I referred to as "passionate and emotional sense of reasoning."
Well done.

So . . . if women should be stripped of their right to vote, do you also think the same about racial and religious minorities?
03-05-2013, 18:52
davsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clint45

So . . . if women should be stripped of their right to vote, do you also think the same about racial and religious minorities?

Only if they're gay.
03-05-2013, 19:05
Epyon

I smell a fail troll. Misogynist, homophobic, and borderline racism is only cool and edgy if you're a 12 year old internet tough guy. Go back to your white supremacist forum. I hope you get banned. One's race, sexual orientation, and gender have nothing to do with logical thought. The right to bear arms extends to ALL law abiding citizens.
03-05-2013, 19:49
Sharpienads

Oh man, what is going on here? [facepalm]
03-05-2013, 20:42
sroz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

Oh man, what is going on here? [facepalm]

Just the shallow end of the gene pool expanding. Just requires a little mop-up and maybe more chlorine.

[Coffee]
03-05-2013, 21:18
davsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epyon

I smell a fail troll. Misogynist, homophobic, and borderline racism is only cool and edgy if you're a 12 year old internet tough guy. Go back to your white supremacist forum. I hope you get banned. One's race, sexual orientation, and gender have nothing to do with logical thought. The right to bear arms extends to ALL law abiding citizens.

Lighten up, skippy.

Just because I do not share in your politically correct attitude, does not make me a "libtard" troll. If you are so inclined, you can find me on other sites with more extensive history than what you deduce by my post count here.

Personally, I believe I was born about 150 years too late - I share most of our founder's beliefs - across the board. If you have a different opinion/view, feel free to share it - I will not attempt to shut you down with name calling and ignorant assumptions concerning your motivation - simple debate backed up with facts and citation will suffice.

My previous, "Only if they're gay," remark was an attempt at answering a ridiculous presumptive question with an equally ridiculous answer.

I agree with the statement, "One's race, sexual orientation, and gender have nothing to do with logical thought." However, I will point out that these factors you list have everything to do with an individual's world view and play a major role in their decision making. If everyone resorted only to logic, there would be little cause for debate.

I stand by my original comment regarding the increasing frequency and extent of emotionally motivated legislation being introduced and passed - correlating with an increase in the feminine influence that has permeated throughout modern civilization. If you disagree (or agree), I would like to hear your opinion.
03-07-2013, 09:18
def90

Where do these people get their facts from?

Per Assault Weapons Liability:

(2) A PERSON WHO SELLS OR TRANSFERS AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS
20 DEEMED TO BE AWARE:
21 (a) THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SOUGHT AFTER BY AND ARE
22 USEFUL FOR CRIMINALS, MASS KILLERS, AND THOSE WITH CRIMINAL
23 INTENT BUT ARE RARELY NECESSARY FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES; AND
24 (b) OF THE EXTREME LIKELIHOOD THAT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
25 THAT IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED WILL BE USED IN A CRIME OR WILL RESULT
26 IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH
03-07-2013, 09:25
losttrail

Quote:

Originally Posted by def90

Where do these people get their facts from?

Per Assault Weapons Liability:

(2) A PERSON WHO SELLS OR TRANSFERS AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS
20 DEEMED TO BE AWARE:
21 (a) THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SOUGHT AFTER BY AND ARE
22 USEFUL FOR CRIMINALS, MASS KILLERS, AND THOSE WITH CRIMINAL
23 INTENT BUT ARE RARELY NECESSARY FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES; AND
24 (b) OF THE EXTREME LIKELIHOOD THAT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
25 THAT IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED WILL BE USED IN A CRIME OR WILL RESULT
26 IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH

Who says these are facts? Other than the Marxist anti-Americans that are putting these bills forth. Logic and critical thinking have absolutely nothing to do with this. The Liberals (Marxists) work solely on emotion and their obsession with power and control.
03-07-2013, 09:39
roberth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epyon

I smell a fail troll. Misogynist, homophobic, and borderline racism is only cool and edgy if you're a 12 year old internet tough guy. Go back to your white supremacist forum. I hope you get banned. One's race, sexual orientation, and gender have nothing to do with logical thought. The right to bear arms extends to ALL law abiding citizens.

So do I.

Hey davesel, you're wrong on so many points. One point here - What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", or do you take it literally to mean "men" and not women or homosexuals? In this context "men" applies to all human beings regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
03-07-2013, 14:25
Clint45

Quote:

Originally Posted by def90

Where do these people get their facts from?

Per Assault Weapons Liability:

(2) A PERSON WHO SELLS OR TRANSFERS AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS
20 DEEMED TO BE AWARE:
21 (a) THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SOUGHT AFTER BY AND ARE
22 USEFUL FOR CRIMINALS, MASS KILLERS, AND THOSE WITH CRIMINAL
23 INTENT BUT ARE RARELY NECESSARY FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES; AND
24 (b) OF THE EXTREME LIKELIHOOD THAT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
25 THAT IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED WILL BE USED IN A CRIME OR WILL RESULT
26 IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH

I cannot believe this actually made its way to the Senate for a vote. That is insane. But they left out a few things: "whacko," "bloody," and "for the children."
[pileoshit]
03-09-2013, 01:50
davsel

Quote:

Originally Posted by roberth

So do I.

Hey davesel, you're wrong on so many points. One point here - What happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", or do you take it literally to mean "men" and not women or homosexuals? In this context "men" applies to all human beings regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Seriously? I guess if we are all "equal," as you have no doubt been "taught" in public education, where there are no longer winners and losers, then I guess I can be an NBA star, and women will perform "equal" to men on the battlefield, and men are just as nurturing as women. Get real. No one is "equal." Some are better at certain skills than others. Women, in general, are better at certain skills than men. Men, in general, are better at certain skills than women. Maybe that's why men and women do not compete against each other in the Olympics? Stop repeating the feminizing chant that "everyone is equal." Just ain't so, and you know it. I can't believe I have to point this out. I did not make it this way, but no matter how much you wish it was not so, it will always be the truth.
03-09-2013, 11:26
BlasterBob

Quote:

Originally Posted by def90

Where do these people get their facts from?

Per Assault Weapons Liability:

(2) A PERSON WHO SELLS OR TRANSFERS AN ASSAULT WEAPON IS
20 DEEMED TO BE AWARE:
21 (a) THAT ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE SOUGHT AFTER BY AND ARE
22 USEFUL FOR CRIMINALS, MASS KILLERS, AND THOSE WITH CRIMINAL
23 INTENT BUT ARE RARELY NECESSARY FOR LAWFUL PURPOSES; AND
24 (b) OF THE EXTREME LIKELIHOOD THAT AN ASSAULT WEAPON
25 THAT IS SOLD OR TRANSFERRED WILL BE USED IN A CRIME OR WILL RESULT
26 IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH

Anyone who believes this [pileoshit]is totally off their damn rocker.
03-09-2013, 11:32
mikedubs

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlasterBob

Anyone who believes this [pileoshit]is totally off their damn rocker.

Thankfully, this along with the college CCW bill were killed by their sponsors. What we saw the Rs doing last night against HB 1224 was just warming up in comparison to the heat they would have brought against these two bills. The Dems knew
they didn't have enough votes to pass either, and wanted to avoid a nasty fight.
Which is kind of good; it lets us all focus everything on 1224, which is still under debate on Monday.
03-09-2013, 11:43
aryntha

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikedubs

Which is kind of good; it lets us all focus everything on 1224, which is still under debate on Monday.

This. Does anyone know (besides the meeting with Newell) if any of the other senators (Giron, Jones) are having any functions this weekend?
I hate to think that the snow is gonna ruin mobility and our chance to get to them...

I know a lot of folks will have given up because of last night... I can't.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:20.