Close
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 74

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Gong Shooter
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Arvada
    Posts
    357

    Default

    If Polis has Presidential ambitions (which I am sure he does), will he sign this into law? Wouldn't look good on the national stage if he signed into law the worst gun ban this country has seen.

  2. #2
    Looking Elsewhere
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Peoples Republic (Boulder)
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zulu01 View Post
    If Polis has Presidential ambitions (which I am sure he does), will he sign this into law? Wouldn't look good on the national stage if he signed into law the worst gun ban this country has seen.
    I don't think he will sign it, but will he simply do nothing and allow it to pass without signing or will he veto it?

  3. #3
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    westminster
    Posts
    2,230

    Default

    I sure hope Polis does not sign it. I'm not quite ready to move. I need a year.

  4. #4
    Looking Elsewhere
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Peoples Republic (Boulder)
    Posts
    3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by colorider View Post
    I sure hope Polis does not sign it. I'm not quite ready to move. I need a year.
    If he doesn't sign it and doesn't veto it it automatically goes in to law.

  5. #5
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Highlands Ranch
    Posts
    1,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by def90 View Post
    If he doesn't sign it and doesn't veto it it automatically goes in to law.
    This needs to be reversed. No signature or veto should equal a veto. This coward's rule needs revision

  6. #6
    Fancy & Customized User Title .455_Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mountains West of Boulder
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    I would think that a bill that effectively bans the sale/transfer of essentially every non-.22 detachable magazine semiauto firearm would be a slam dunk for an immediate injunction, but what do I know...
    The vagrants of Boulder welcome you...

  7. #7
    Grand Master Know It All eddiememphis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .455_Hunter View Post
    I would think that a bill that effectively bans the sale/transfer of essentially every non-.22 detachable magazine semiauto firearm would be a slam dunk for an immediate injunction, but what do I know...
    Not all handguns, according to the current bill.

    They define "GAS-OPERATED SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN" as, among other things, A BLOWBACK-OPERATED SYSTEM THAT DIRECTLY UTILIZES THE EXPANDING GASSES OF THE IGNITED PROPELLANT POWDER ACTING ON THE CARTRIDGE CASE TO DRIVE THE BREECHBLOCK OR BREECH BOLT REARWARD.

    However, under exemptions is this- A SINGLE OR DOUBLE ACTION SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN THAT USES RECOIL TO CYCLE THE ACTION OF THE HANDGUN.

    So this would seem to indicate a .380 or a Hi-Point will be banned but a Glock or 1911 will be exempt.

    I would love to see that cocksucker Sullivan try to explain that one. Since he didn't write the bill, I doubt he could. He just proposed what his keepers at Giffords and/or Everytown wrote for him.

  8. #8
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Conifer
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .455_Hunter View Post
    I would think that a bill that effectively bans the sale/transfer of essentially every non-.22 detachable magazine semiauto firearm would be a slam dunk for an immediate injunction, but what do I know...
    And the Ruger 10/22 because this bill prohibits the transfer of that one as well as other two piece receiver 22s that I don't know about.
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson

    Feedback

  9. #9
    Fancy & Customized User Title .455_Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Mountains West of Boulder
    Posts
    2,678

    Default

    The 10/22 is a two-piece receiver? I was thinking more of the .22 AR clones.
    The vagrants of Boulder welcome you...

  10. #10
    Machine Gunner
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Conifer
    Posts
    1,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by .455_Hunter View Post
    The 10/22 is a two-piece receiver? I was thinking more of the .22 AR clones.
    Yep, it has an upper receiver assembly that is serialized pinned to a lower assembly that houses the trigger. Obviously they are targeting the AR platform, but a lot of firearms use two piece receivers.

    (A) A FIREARM DESIGNED TO ACCEPT , AND CAPABLE OF1
    OPERATING ONLY WITH, .22 OR LOWER CALIBER RIMFIRE AMMUNITION,2
    UNLESS THE FIREARM HAS A SEPARATE UPPER AND LOWER RECEIVER
    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    Thomas Jefferson

    Feedback

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •