"Assault weapons" ban

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

How old is assault weapons, ban due at the federal circuit level? Assault weapons bands seem to come mainly from states where the federal circuit will back them up and keep the bands in place. That means that there is often not a split in the circuits where one says the bans are good the other says the bans are bad. Could the circuit that Colorado is in give us that?

I have a feeling that would take at least two years to work its way through, hopefully we can get SCOTUS to act before that

[Ramsker]

Sadly . . . this state is firmly in control of the morons. This will pass and Polis will sign. I don't see any way it gets stopped.

I'm not confident at all that there is a path back to sanity here. Too many family committments to leave at this point. I guess it's small solace that there isn't registration/confiscation . . . yet. I'm sure they'll get to it.

[DDT951]

So what is on the shopping list since there will be a few months to stock up?

[ray1970]

So what is on the shopping list since there will be a few months to stock up?

You don?t buy when the prices are high. You sell.

[Gunner]

Sadly . . . this state is firmly in control of the morons. This will pass and Polis will sign. I don't see any way it gets stopped.

I'm not confident at all that there is a path back to sanity here. Too many family committments to leave at this point. I guess it's small solace that there isn't registration/confiscation . . . yet. I'm sure they'll get to it.

Yup, I?m stuck here for the foreseeable future as well. I wish I could leave


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eddiememphis]

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...ional-gun-ban/

Dave Kopel's legal argument against the bill.

He is likely to get involved in the challenges brought against it. Very sharp guy and has argued in front of the Supreme Court in the past.

[.455_Hunter]

https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com...ional-gun-ban/

Dave Kopel's legal argument against the bill.

He is likely to get involved in the challenges brought against it. Very sharp guy and has argued in front of the Supreme Court in the past.

I think another good analysis would the be an assessment of the the number of "assault weapons" in public hands, and the percent of those firearms used in crime versus the percent held by sane, moral and responsible citizens.

I also like analogies supporting the restriction of home high-speed internet just because some deviants use it for child pornography. Same level of logic as shown in these gun control bills.

[BPTactical]

Dear Colorado Democrats,
Fuck Off

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

[FoxtArt]

42 U.S.C. ?1983 is where the real meat and potatoes is. It also pays for attorney fees.

18 U.S.C. ?242 is laughable, in that it will never, ever, ever, be enforced, and they know it.

Just letting you know how to improve your threats

****SAMPLE****

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently a 6:3 conservative majority, the time could not be better for us to bring a case and forever foreclose on your ability to introduce legislation like this, ever again.

Please give us standing while the Supreme Court is so strongly in my favor. The language of this bill, which includes assertions such as "hypermasculinity", is written without factual support, and in a way that strongly favors court intervention and condemnation, resulting in a devastating precedential opinion for your cause. Granted, it will take a few years, during which time you'll pat yourself on the back.

So, surprisingly, I encourage you, the legislators, to ignore the future risk to your cause and vote "YES". While this may induce a temporary infringement on my rights, if we have to fight it inevitably, I much prefer to do so now, and with such a poorly written bill before us. I know you intend to ignore the rest of the testimony today, but know that your moment of unjustified back-patting will be short lived.

While the inevitable case work their way up to the Supreme Court, this bill will temporarily infringe on the rights of millions of legal, law abiding gun owners. In that same period of time, pursuant to DEA stats, more than 6,400 Coloradoans will have died from drug overdoses, of which an estimated 4,000 people will be from Fentanyl alone.

What effort do you serve the state with this bill, other than consuming the time of the attorney general in the defense - and loss - of the forthcoming 42 U.S.C. ?1983 deprivation of rights litigation, which guarantees all of our attorney's fees will be paid?

As much as it pains me to say it, please vote YES so that the Supreme Court will have the most absurd legislation before it to finalize precedential law. I may hate this bill, but fortunately, I am more patient than the drafters of it.

****SAMPLE****

[DDT951]

You don?t buy when the prices are high. You sell.

Prices arent high. You can order anything you want to an FFL.

The issue is... if courts dont stop it, it wont be a matter of price... it will be a matter you can no longer buy/sell it. Price is irrelevant. If you dont buy before you wont get it.