2017 Gun bills in the Colorado Legislature

[DDT951]

I hope the Republicans refuse to even discuss any tax or fee hike until the Dems give us something we want (i.e. magazines).

Compromise doesnt always mean we give them part of what they want and they give us nothing.

[Jamnanc]

So, the mag repeal passed the vet mil committee, what's the chances?

[brutal]

Agreed but that needs to be a national effort or we still have an issue with BATFE and the FFLs who would otherwise sell the products.

I believe he's referring to the potential passage of the HPA making silencers de facto illegal in Colorado due to our state law providing only an affirmative defense by virtue of their "licensing" at the Fed level.

[Skip]

So, the mag repeal passed the vet mil committee, what's the chances?

We only have one house and we don't have the votes to override Hick, so I would guess nil.

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

[Jamnanc]

We only have one house and we don't have the votes to override Hick, so I would guess nil.

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

Wasn't the house veterans and military affairs committee the location of the kill last time though? What has changed?

[Zundfolge]

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

This is what I've been thinking. IF they were smart they'd let the repeal happen. That would placate 90% of gun owners who wouldn't have as much fire to repeal the Universal Background Check law (which is the most dangerous one for us) or push the state government back red. They could preserve the rest of their agenda if they'd give on this one tiny thing.

Thing is they're greedy ... and the mag ban is classic symbolism over substance so most of them would give up the real power of the UBC law to preserve the silly mag ban. SMH

[DOC]

Repeal them all! Let god sort em out.

[Rucker61]

We should ask the law makers how many criminals that carry concealed had a permit to carry concealed.

They say they want common sense laws. Well common sense says criminals don't give a fuck about laws nor obtaining permits.

Since 2008, the virulently anti-gun VPC has listed just four homicides they consider to be CCW related. One happened in the home; one happened by a security guards who could open carry as part of his job, and the other two didn't result in any convictions.

[Rucker61]

We only have one house and we don't have the votes to override Hick, so I would guess nil.

It would be very smart for Dems to support it and start trying to appeal to "normal" folks on issues that don't do anything for them. But they're Dems and they don't give back "progress."

It's not just that they don't give back progress. They aren't capable of being "smart" about guns. Not only are they ignorant, they revel in their ignorance. That last part just makes them stupid. Yes, I'm looking at you, Rapsheet, and you, DeGette.

[ColoradoMinuteMan]

My only concern would be the under 21 military one for the following reasons:

* Very little to any military training is going to cross over to concealed carry, and some would need to be undone in context (i.e., the guy whose only weapons training is .mil and has yet to understand the differences vs carry in public).
* The threat to .mil members seems to be largely on post, if terrorist actions serve as a guide. The state has no authority to authorize CCW on post where the largest target concentration is.
* The maturity of a grunt (or any MOS) when he is in his squad w/ an NCO directing can be impeccable -- decisive, obedient, etc. Out on the town? Maybe not. This, if it passes, will be every commander's headache of the month.
* Most of the guys under 21 are below NCO ranks and live in the barracks if not married. They either don't have the ability to store their CCW piece except in the arms room (good luck getting that out whenever they want) or would have to store it at a buddy's place -- this would violate current CO law and potentially unit/Division rules = nice thought, but impractical. It would be akin to the legalization of marijuana for many guys and gals at Carson, where the majority of under 21 .mil is in the state.
* Why just current and former .mil members under 21? Why not anyone without a criminal history at the age of 18 or over who can pass the required courses?

If you can carry a gun safely in combat, you can carry it safely down Main Street. It's really not that complicated.

My only problem with this is that the military personnel should have no additional rights than any other person when it comes to exercising their second amendment rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (meaning my post is likely full of poor typing and autocorrects using wrong words)