Reminder, Ballot Initiative for repealing Magazine Ban deadline nearing.

[UrbanWolf]

How come no one talked about this earlier?

[Rabid]

How come no one talked about this earlier?

We did talk about this on multiple occasions here on the forum months ago. We even had a discussion if it was a good idea and i am still very much against it. Sure we get rid of the ban for now but do you really want it to go to a vote of the people? Do you really want the people to vote on a mag ban when there is another pot initiative next to it on the ballot? I think an initiative like this would be a great way to loose our rights and we can not even hold someone accountable when we do. I ask all of you to really think about the consequences an initiative like this could have before you sign the petition.

[Hound]

We did talk about this on multiple occasions here on the forum months ago. We even had a discussion if it was a good idea and i am still very much against it. Sure we get rid of the ban for now but do you really want it to go to a vote of the people? Do you really want the people to vote on a mag ban when there is another pot initiative next to it on the ballot? I think an initiative like this would be a great way to loose our rights and we can not even hold someone accountable when we do. I ask all of you to really think about the consequences an initiative like this could have before you sign the petition.

This is that one? I do remember the discussion... Maybe we need the wording of the petition put up here as well. There were good points to both sides of that argument as I remember. Maybe an admin will need to merge the two threads if this is the case?

[james_bond_007]

I can't believe 'ole Dudley has not been sending out emails about it...you know "HIS" idea for the petition ....

Also, I am surprised that places like Bass Pro, SW, and Cabela's aren't on the list.
Anyone know if their will be "petition gatherers" at any of these places over the Black Friday weekend ?

With the upcoming Christmas shopping frenzy, I'd think they would be IDEAL places to host a "petition gathering" session.
I can see why they might not want their employees involved in collecting signatures, like the smaller shops are doing, but I can't see why they would not allow non-employee "Petition Gatherers" to do it in a peaceable manner.

If they ARE going to allow such activity, they should be listed on the FB page ...AND on this site.

[Zundfolge]

We did talk about this on multiple occasions here on the forum months ago. We even had a discussion if it was a good idea and i am still very much against it. Sure we get rid of the ban for now but do you really want it to go to a vote of the people? Do you really want the people to vote on a mag ban when there is another pot initiative next to it on the ballot? I think an initiative like this would be a great way to loose our rights and we can not even hold someone accountable when we do. I ask all of you to really think about the consequences an initiative like this could have before you sign the petition.

SECTION 32. GUN MAGAZINES — NO LIMITATION OR RESTRICTION

NO LAW, EXCEPT A LAW ENACTED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, SHALL RESTRICT OR LIMIT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PURCHASE OR POSSESS AMMUNITION STORAGE AND FEEDING DEVICES OF ANY CAPACITY.

Several people have opposed this because of the part in red bold. The foolishness of opposing this on those grounds is that regardless of whether this line was included or not, the people could always put another constitutional amendment on the ballot to undo this one. The inclusion of that verbiage doesn't change a damn thing.

[Rabid]

Several people have opposed this because of the part in red bold. The foolishness of opposing this on those grounds is that regardless of whether this line was included or not, the people could always put another constitutional amendment on the ballot to undo this one. The inclusion of that verbiage doesn't change a damn thing.

What foolishness? Shall we have our rights taken away every time the dems are in office and only getting them back either going through a state wide petition process or waiting until the repubs control the state again? That sounds like insanity to me.

[Zundfolge]

What foolishness? Shall we have our rights taken away every time the dems are in office and only getting them back either going through a state wide petition process or waiting until the repubs control the state again? That sounds like insanity to me.

What is foolishness is refusing to support this amendment because of the inclusion of the "EXCEPT A LAW ENACTED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE" language because even if its not included it still applies. If you remove that verbiage Democrats can STILL put together a state wide petition to get yet another constitutional amendment into the Colorado Constitution that reverses our mag ban reversal (this is why I think it's just too damn easy to amend the CO Constitution ... but that's another long and contentious argument).

[Jer]

What is foolishness is refusing to support this amendment because of the inclusion of the "EXCEPT A LAW ENACTED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE" language because even if its not included it still applies. If you remove that verbiage Democrats can STILL put together a state wide petition to get yet another constitutional amendment into the Colorado Constitution that reverses our mag ban reversal (this is why I think it's just too damn easy to amend the CO Constitution ... but that's another long and contentious argument).

And the end result would be what... what he currently have? What's the risk?

[Zundfolge]

And the end result would be what... what he currently have? What's the risk?

I'm not sure I follow your question.

The reason given for including the language in red is that it will help get it passed I guess by seeming more moderate? ... if it were up to me the language wouldn't be there as its superfluous, but the fact remains that whether its there or not "except a law enacted by a vote of the people" is a real possibility and because they chose to include it I don't see that as a reason not to support the amendment.