Colorado's New Gun Control Laws Effective July 1

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper's spokesman said today he will sign the new gun control laws passed by the legislature into law. Colorado will now have among the most restrictive laws in the country.

The Colorado laws include a ban on ammunition magazines that can carry more than 15 rounds, and eight shotgun shells. The bill on background checks expands the requirement to sales and transfers between private parties and online purchases.

Two laws that didn't make it: "a new liability standard for gun owners and sellers, and a ban on concealed weapons on public college campuses."

A few more are still under consideration: [More...]

...a ban on gun ownership by people accused of domestic-violence crimes and a bill to eliminate online-only safety training for people seeking concealed-weapons permits. [My emphasis]

There will also be fees for background checks to buy guns.

One Colorado sheriff says he won't enforce the laws-- apparently he's not the only one:

“Criminals are still going to get their guns,” [Weld County Sheriff John Cooke]said. Cooke said the other bill would also technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered. He said all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.

Cooke said he, like other county sheriffs, “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it will be impossible for them to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners. He said he and other sheriffs are considering a lawsuit against the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.

In my view, these laws are no more than a bandaid -- they don't treat the wound, they just provide temporary cover. They will not keep guns out of the hands of those determined to use them. They won't stop glory killers or deranged individuals.

Guns don't cause rage, they are the means by which people express it. I suspect there will be a greater number of crimes committed with explosives, which carry a potential for killing many more people.

Laws should not be enacted in the aftermath of individual tragedies, no matter how horrific. Cooler heads are needed.

Pass in haste, repent at leisure. Once you give up rights to the Government, you rarely get them back.

What to watch for next: restrictions on video games. How far will legislators take these feel-good, untested restrictions? From sugary drinks to guns, way too far.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It will cost Lanza more to relocate (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    than to retool one die. then train a workforce, so on, so forth. All they need to do is add a stamp on the butt plate of the magazine.

    Histrionics by business to get what it wants. As to the Weld County Sheriff, this sort of enforcement is done by state enforcement inspectors... Colorado department of firearms, bureau of investigation, or even department of agriculture and industries. His objections are, to put it mildly, silly.

    But I will bet you dimes to donuts that if there's a magazine involved in a case, the prosecutor's office will be demanding the investigators to find out. Cooke's objection to the 'altering' part may have some validity... replacing a spring could be considered altering, instead of repairing. Pass the law, then modify the problems to make the law better. This is a fix that could pass the legislature in a couple of hours, provided legislators pay attention.  No sympathy for the sheriff's job getting harder, though. Eating donuts while supervising evictions is hard work.(full disclosure, nephew's a sheriff's deputy, I was a cop for a year, I know how hard the job can be. But the people who thrive in the control-like side will simply have another tool to use.)

    The butt plate (none / 0) (#6)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:55:09 AM EST

    The butt plate on most magazines is replaceable.  There are companies that sell nothing but magazine replacement parts.

    Not to mention that (none / 0) (#7)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    (A) anyone moderately skilled in sheet metal (or plastic) work can make their own and
    (B) people have already started making them with 3D printing.

    Be that as it may... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    these aren't reasons for a company to move. These ARE reasons for a company to grandstand. Trust me, I know these are wear items. I'm saying the investment in marking them is miniscule to inconsequential using old-fashioned methods.  Using laser engraving, there's a higher upfront cost because it moves away from the mature technologies of tool and die. But even spring makers for auto parts mark their springs by laser engraving. It's not a technological issue. It's a will issue.

    The reason to move. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:58:13 AM EST

    The reason to move is the state is willing to disadvantage in state manufacturers versus out of state manufactures.  

    BTW, automotive springs are made by the zillions so spreading the cost of equipment is doable.  Also there warranty and liability reasons for marking that benefits the manufacturer and the customer.

    A specialty maker like this does not have the volume and marking provides no benefit to the manufacturer or the customer.  



    Their only responsibility (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    is to turn a profit for the shareholders..

    And Adam Lanza's sense of social responsibility was only slightly narrower..

    These things are a matter of degree..


    As if (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:12:44 AM EST

    As if one had the slightest thing to do with the other.  Please explain the difference if Adam Lanza had used a dated and serialized magazines.  



    Different forms of autism (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:23:21 AM EST
     ..yours just happens to be sanctioned by the sociopath/consultants at our vaunted schools of business and economics.

    But hey, that's why you're a republican, right?


    Jeff, please understand that Magpul (none / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:42:01 AM EST
    will be boycotted if they stay in Colorado, not to mention that if they stay, they likely will be harassed by state-level regulators looking to justify their own jobs.

    All the arcana of making guns and gun parts are relatively easily understood by anyone with a moderate degree of mechanical skill and relatively easily done by such a person with a drill press, lathe, and milling machine.  That person might not make a spectacular product, but it will work.

    Magazines are basically three pieces of bent metal and a spring.  An aluminum siding installer has all the mechanical skill and probably the tools, to make one.


    Who is going to boycott them? (none / 0) (#28)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    Potential buyers of their product (none / 0) (#40)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    Where is your source for this? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:55:31 PM EST
    Magpul's Chief Operating Officer, (none / 0) (#53)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:19:48 PM EST
    In the Denver Post:

    "If we're able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here," said Doug Smith, Magpul's chief operating officer. "Staying here would hurt our business."

    And, now, they're backing up their words.


    Or maybe (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:26:33 AM EST
    They were planning on moving out of state anyways, and this is just a good excuse?

    You don't decide and implement a company moving in a couple of months.


    Scribe, I know it's easy to make magazines (none / 0) (#30)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:08:56 PM EST
    and that someone can make one at home, but the cost of closing, re-opening, moving, re-licensing in another state, hiring and re-training a workforce-- once they're competent, replacement through attrition doesn't degrade the product quality-- new and different regulations, insurance, and so forth...

    More than likely Alabama would be one of the places the company would consider moving to. I just think the move is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

    As to the picketing, I don't know enough of Colorado's internal dynamics to comment, so I'll keep my fingers off of the keyboard for that, and accept it as a possibility.

    As to the regulators, I do have a guess, though. I'd guess that inspections would be handed to some department already regulating something else.

    Scribe, can you tell me about the efficiency of Colorado investigative entities? I don't have any knowledge of the state's agencies, whether they are strict or lax.


    Wyoming and Texas have already invited (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    Magpul to move to their states.  This will likely mean relocation assistance, tax abatements, and probably some help for the workers who choose/are chosen to follow Magpul to its new home.  Just like any other state does when it woos a business to move there.

    Come On... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    Guns don't cause rage, they are the means by which people express it. I suspect there will be a greater number of crimes committed with explosives, which carry a potential for killing many more people.

    True, guns don't cause rage, but people use guns because they travel well, access is easy, and they are practically instantaneous. The time from deciding to use it, to it being fired is less than 10 seconds.  None of that is true for explosives, which are also unpredictable, sensitive, and non-directional.

    I am not worried about getting caught in mass shooting, but I do worry about a someone jacking me in a parking lot, at the ATM, or in my home.

    If that happens, I pray to the spaghetti monster, that they pull out a stick of dynamite instead of a gun, because the odds of me living drastically increase.  Even a grenade would give me a far better chance of living if their intent is to kill me.

    My point is acting like explosive are an alternative to guns is beyond disingenuous.  Knives, bats, tazers, you know the stuff that people have historically used as alternatives in the real world.  There is a reason guns are the preferred weapon for criminals and home defense, there is no equal alternative.

    These Sheriffs take an oath to uphold the law and the Constitution.  It is not their job to determine which ones to uphold.  They are in the executive branch, not the legislative or the judicial.  They should be fired for making statements that are in direct conflict with the oath of the office IMO.

    It's similar to the morally ridiculous pharmacists who won't fill legal prescriptions because of their own issues.  I am positive if these same Sheriffs claimed they didn't have to follow the new marijuana laws, your take would be considerably different.  I don't actually have a problem if they make it a low priority, but coming out and claiming they aren't going to uphold the law is a fireable offense for any law enforcement officer IMO.

    That being said, as I have mentioned million times, it's all non-sense.  The American market is so saturated with guns, there are literally no laws that will have any real impact on gun violence.  This discussion about real and effective gun control is about 5 decades too late.  Now the only real option is to arm yourself.  The gun lobby and gun fetishist have beaten the America and now we will forever be beholden to their desires of more and more guns.

    Car jacking in a parking lot in Miami (none / 0) (#21)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    is my constant fear when I drive  up there.  Scott, I'm not sure one even has 10 seconds to pull, shoot, and survive.  I hate to think of buying another gun like a .357 magnum that will shoot through my car door and into the jackers body before he shoots me.  I think I mentioned a few months ago that I pulled my dinky .38, waved it out the sunroof at a guy that was sneaking up on me, and he split immediately.  People get robbed and shot by bad guys every night in Miami.  I know...don't go to Miami but I've just gotta see my man Lebron.

    I'm not sure but I don't think sherrifs (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:42:26 PM EST
    report to the county executive. I think they are
    responsible only to the voters...although some locations may have recall criteria..

    The magazine bill (none / 0) (#1)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:05:57 AM EST

    The magazine bill (read before final amendment) required magazines made in the state to carry a serial number and date of manufacture.  Quite the invitation to move any manufacturer out of state.  

    Also existing mags are grandfathered in.  So it appears this will do exactly ZERO to prevent another mass shooting.

    A person may possess a large-capacity magazine if he or she owns the on the effective date of the bill and maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine.

    How to prove the age or ownership of a magazine is a real challenge.  


    Actually, ther will be certain (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:45:17 AM EST
     manufacturers marks-- although not serial numbers, on many magazines. Most magazines have a manufacturer's stamp on them now, at least the one's i'm familiar with. Companies know that word of mouth is an excellent means of advertising if one has a magazine that rarely misfeeds. Adding a single stamp will be an expense, but one easily passed on to the consumer and also easily amortized, probably on the advanced schedule. So it could actually mean a good writeoff for a machine whose technology hasn't changed in years and will last virtually forever.

    Picking a mature industry with mature machines is actually a good idea. I would guess that there are many stamps that would simply need a new stamp head to allow it. does the law require separate serial numbers? Even so, the technologies have existed since before 1900. Ams companies and the ancillary parts, such as magazines, stocks, receiver groups, barrels, this is old technology, so minor modifications to either existing equipment and/or a new number-changing head will be readily available, not a specially- made tool. Heck, the magazine manufacturers in Colorado could look for surplus stamps from many different industries, available at pennies on the dollar. If I manufactured magazines, I'd be calling the US arsenals to see what is available, or even bullet manufacturing companies to see what used equipment is available.

    I'd also ask any bullet manufacturers for boxes of rejected or inert rounds to for quality control on magazines to see if any modificactions might be needed. I carried 30-round M-16 magazines for years that we could only load 27 or 28 rounds in for fear of jamming.

    Add 10 cents to the cost of a magazine, and pass it along to the customer. Firearms don't fall into the necessity category-- until the zombie apocalypse, and then rednecks like me and country survivors like Zorba will be more valuable than any pallet full of empty magazines to begin with  :)

    doesn't do much good to shoot a bunch of zombies without having a backhoe, so real survivalists need a Bobcat, diesel, a hand crank battery charger, chainsaws, gasoline, gas preservative, 2 cycle oil, 4 stroke oil, bar and chain lube, spark plugs, etc...

    I'd like to know if simply a lot number suffices as a serial number. lot stamps can be adjusted, and likely have a 4-9 digit stamp add-on that could still be extremely inexpensive, considering the maturity of the technology. Then just change out the lot stamp head to a lot stamp head to A00001, and go from there. that takes care of the serial number on the first 2,599,974 magazines from A00001-Z99999, then make it AA0001-zz9999... all the while charging 10 cents more, and banking that for a new dye stamp. But more than likely that would be a $2.00 charge, with the retailers pushing it to $5 and passing it along.

    Heck, I might buy some old tools and dies and start a magazine assembly shop. Of course, I wouldn't make certain kinds-- why make a 40-round mag for a pistol to begin with? It's time for people to get realistic. If you need more than eight shots, save the 8 shots and run! Just be faster than one person... and leave your mags and weapons for that person to make a delaying action :)


    Jeff, my brother, (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    you are still more than welcome to come up here and help us repel the zombie apocalypse.  We have plenty of food, and the means to grow, hunt, and fish more.  I'm still looking for an affordable Bobcat, BTW!  So useful, but so expensive!
    Be well.  I am sending you all the positive thoughts and energy that I can!

    Unlike a firearm with a serial number (none / 0) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:53:20 AM EST

    All of the four basic components of a magazine, tube, spring, follower, and base pad are all wear items and can be replaced individually.  BTW, none of my 170mm 28 round pistol magazines has any lot or date markings on any of the four components.  The plastic follower has a mold number, but that's it.

    BTW, even with a lot number, how much time and money do you think it is worth to research who the manufacturer was and when the lot was made for a misdemeanor?



    If a prosecutor (none / 0) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    is doing his/her job, then following up on this purchase can lead to other information. In the case of a misdemeanor, who cares? It's the trail that leads from the plant to the original vendor to the original buyer... how did the magazine get from the buyer to the person who committed a felony with it. Or to the person wounded or killed by a magazine or pistol left or found at a crime scene. The misdemeanor aspect is silly.

    As I said, adding a stamp with a lot and serial number on the line for any or all of the components is a low-cost one-time expense, but that cost can be added to all magazines, even if the purchase of a few would pay for it. Look at it this way... if we can find that salmonella or listeria from a hamburger in California came from a specific meat processor in Iowa, why can't we find out where certain parts that make up a firearm come from?

    With the amount of shooting deaths and injuries, accidental and criminal, accountability is key. firearms manufacturers may be exempt from many or most product liability lawsuits, but ancillary devices may not be.


    You have to be kidding? Right???? (none / 0) (#10)
    by terraformer on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    It's time for people to get realistic. If you need more than eight shots, save the 8 shots and run! Just be faster than one person... and leave your mags and weapons for that person to make a delaying action :)

    If you need more shots, run? The hit rate for self-defense is 20-40%. That means out of 8 shots, 2-3 will land on a target.

    Tell the guy below that having 8 shots is sufficient to repel 4 home invaders. NB: The stats above mean that 1-2 of the 4 walk away unhit, much less hit and still attacking.


    BTW: Hit rate stat (none / 0) (#11)
    by terraformer on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:41:06 AM EST
    The hit rate stat is based on police and FBI shootings. If one believes cops have super powers then non-cops can do only worse. If one believes cops are poorly undertrained and over confident, then non-cops can do better.

    I'd be happy to (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:03:56 AM EST
    Tell the guy below that having 8 shots is sufficient to repel 4 home invaders. NB: The stats above mean that 1-2 of the 4 walk away unhit, much less hit and still attacking.

    Particularly considering he hit none of his attackers (based on this article) and the four invaders were, in fact, repelled.

    BTW - I think Jeff was making a joke.


    Thanks, Yman... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    Some people are humor challenged as well as reality challenged. The fact that I mentioned leaving your rounds for someone else to use indicated jest to anyone but a selective reader  or someone truly deluded about how important a firearm is when it comes to self- or home defense.

    But a few questions to the person nonetheless.

    What stats can you provide about home invasions where the homeowner fired 8 shots and the invaders kept coming?

    Can you provide examples-- preferably more than a single datum, that  when a person shoots two of eight assailants, yet the other six decide to keep coming?  

    Can you find the amount of monetary damage was caused by the firing of multiple rounds of ammunition in a residential area? This one probably will not be available. not terribly important to what we're speaking about, anyway.

    Now, my thoughts:

    If you can't shoot at better than 30 percent under pressure, you're better off with a sword, a baseball bat, or a crowbar. Use the bat's end or knob as a thrusting weapon, and aim for the solar plexus, the eyes, the crotch, the shins, in that order. With an aluminum bat, you can generate enough thrust to take the fight out of someone. If you've missed 4 times out of 8 at an oncoming, then grab the pistol or the rifle by the barrel, and apply the weapon topically to the assailant. You obviously have no use for a firearm, but you may be able to strike with a club. Before you get shot,stabbed, or whatever, you should be cause at least a nasty bruise on at least one assailant.

    With 30 percent accuracy, you're more likely to hit your neighbor's house across the street than an assailant.

    Volume of fire does not, I repeat NOT mean that, "Gee, whiz, if I put enough bullets down range, somebody's falling down!" In my experience, spread over three continents, numerous islands, and just about every conflict and/or police action since Vietnam (Kosovo and any other Balkan conflict excluded), the idiot who fires multiple rounds winds up firing most of them in a climbing arc, whether either a pistol, a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon (crew served weapons mounted on pintles, bipods or tripods excluded).

    If someone's 15 feet away and you haven't hit them yet, you may as well run, because you're about to be in a world of pain, unless you have Chuck Norris-like skills.

    People, the vast majority, do not have either the training or the expertise to use these weapons effectively, yet claim they are needed for self-defense with huge magazines. I carried a .45 caliber pistol and an M-16 in combat. I did not use multiple by this read more than two at a time) rounds to hit my targets.If I missed with two, then the adversary I was shooting at had usually taken cover or moved out of my line of sight. that adversary had been stopped from his attack. Think about it-- just as effective as someone running away, because, for that moment, and possibly for a lot longer, the adversary was out of the firefight. He may come back, but he may stay in cover. Someone rarely if ever returns to the fight in domestic situations, Q.E.D.

    If one of my soldiers had been blazing away in the manner you describe-- unless I had called for covering or suppressive fire-- I would have butt-stroked him firmly in the helmet to get his attention for not showing fire discipline.

    As to police or anyone else armed with a handgun, if the range is outside of 20-25 feet, or 7-8 meters, you'd better have a lot of practice id you want to make sure you hit where you're aiming. Given the general lack of training, practice, and fire discipline of the average citizen and criminal, getting shot from outside of 15 feet remains unlikely.  

    Pistol-craft, or rather pistol practice designed to inflict damage upon an adversary, is a skill that requires a lot of practice. There's more to shooting someone than simply buying a pistol with a 14 or 15 round magazine or a rifle with a 20 or 30 round magazine.

    Feel free to believe in yourself. I'm not questioning you. But don't draw conclusions out of made-up premises and then get self-righteous.

    There's more to self defense or home defense with firearms than simply target practice at the range, unless one practices sleeping at the range and waking up being able to fire within two or three seconds. There are distractions like light, dark, screaming, dogs barking, other noise distractions, line-of-sight interruptions by noncombatants or civilians or even one's spouse, children, parents or grandchildren, depending on the situation. One should even sounds of rifle and pistol fire, since you're speaking of armed adversaries with, apparently, a limitless supply of ammunition.

    Personally, I'd move if I thought my neighborhood had become, or possibly might become, LZ X-Ray.


    Jeff! Long time no read! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:35:17 PM EST
    Hope things are okay and glad to hear from you and if I ever get in a fire fight with anyone you're welcome to come up and help!

    In the meantime I'll keep my 20 gauge (legal length) short barrel no choke pump loaded with #4. Throws about a 18" pattern at 30' and if that doesn't stop'em I'm in real trouble!


    Been poorly, Jim. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:43:11 PM EST
    I agree with you. My 12 gauge is my home defense weapon of choice. 5 shells of #4 buckshot, and when an intruder hears me rack it, I only hope the intruder knows I'm serious. I'll send you an email either tonight or tomorrow, Jim, and glad to see you here.

    Hey Jeff, (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:54:47 PM EST
    nice hearing from you.

    I'm really glad you outlined the realities of being involved in live-fire situations.......especially for amateurs (even if they've had "training.") Jeralyn usually deletes my posts when I try it.  You may have left out one important fact though, and that is, when it`s "game time," and the reality hits you of possibly, actually killing another human being, will you freeze, hesitate, or just drop the weapon in a sobbing, confused stupor. Everyone thinks the shooting comes automatically and don't even consider the possibilities. I've seen it happen (with "trained" soldiers,) from both sides, more times than I wish to remember.

    Let's talk again soon, my friend.


    I did leave that out, NY Shooter, (none / 0) (#36)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 10:59:14 PM EST
    and you are absolutely right. I didn't mention it on purpose, because a firing range commando won't believe it. We've seen it, but that's our lying eyes. Good to be back for a while. Back to the oncologist on Thursday, so we'll see...

    Doesn't always work that way. (none / 0) (#23)
    by redwolf on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    People high on PCP for instances often require multiple rounds that actually hit in order to be deterred.  Fortunately most criminals stop at the mere site of someone armed and most gun owners never have to fire to stop a crime in progress:  http://tinyurl.com/cycos3n

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:13:09 PM EST
    It doesn't always work that way.

    But let's design our laws to deal with the all-too-common, mass PCP-user attack, ...

    ... zombies, too.


    I'll take your story about a negligent CCW holder. (none / 0) (#25)
    by redwolf on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    And raise you a cop shooting himself in a classroom full of children.  No one is talking about passing laws to remove guns from the hands of cops:

    Considering how poorly our laws work when it comes to police abuse, arresting bankers who are too big to fail, and prosecuting people for torturing stemming from the Iraq war, why would you advocate even more of them?  Existing laws don't seem to be working and adding even more laws resembles doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results.


    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 07:53:06 PM EST
    Apart from the fact that your train of thought is going in several directions at once, I'll see your instance of a cop shooting himself and raise you 11,000 annual gun homicides and 52,000 deliberate, non-fatal shootings (every year).

    Think we shouldn't have more laws because (in your mind) some laws are ineffective?  Fine.  Get rid of CCW laws.


    Every year 207,754 american women are raped. (none / 0) (#31)
    by redwolf on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 09:32:31 PM EST
    Given the physical disadvantage most women face with most men why would you want to take away CCW's from women? Do you want even more women raped every year?  What are women suppose to do, use harsh language?  Or should they follow Democratic Rep. Joe Salazar suggestion rape whistles and call boxes were sufficient enough for women to prevent rape.  



    As a woman, let me just say (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:45:21 PM EST
    that I find your theories to be both offensive and ignorant.

    I got your back, even if you don't need (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:03:00 AM EST
    or want it-- at least on the reply here, Shoe

    See my post about baseball bats, groin, shins, etc. Buy a can of pepper spray. Most sexually oriented assaults are a) about power, and b) done to victims by people they know.

    PEOPLE THEY KNOW. I guess now we need to be ready to pop a cap in our friends.

    I don't know about you, but when my friends come over, I usually don't pull out a handgun, place it on my coffee table, and say, "Just in case you become some dangerous, I'll put this here so I can shoot you. Just in case."

    Do you think that might lead to some seriously strange conversation?


    Your (new) fantasy scenario ... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:37:59 AM EST
    ... assumes those women would - while under the severe stress of an attack - be able to gain the advantage in order to draw and fire their gun without hesitating, freezing or having the gun taken from them by their attacker and used to kill the victim - and shoot or kill their attacker first.  Not to mention all of the other potential problems - misidentifying an attacker, etc.  Then, of course, there's the fact that the majority of these rapes occur in situations where the woman will not be using a CCW - at her home, dorm, etc., against an attacker that she knows.

    Now we're reduced to Jack (Jaqueline?) Bauer fairy tales ...


    Wrongheaded, stupid, and guaranteeing (none / 0) (#3)
    by scribe on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    electoral defeats for Democrats who voted for or signed this bill.

    More to the point, it has finally come out from the Connecticut police that, indeed, it was the video games.  Adam Lanza spent literally years planning his acts, setting up a spreadsheet which, when printed out, was approximately 7 feet by 4 feet even though he'd typed it in 9 point type.  He carried out what the police characterized as research on the level of a doctoral thesis about mass killers in the past.  He was looking to rack up the highest score ever.  In the video game world, if someone else shoots you they get your points, so the police concluded he killed himself so the police couldn't take his points.

    This made the front cover of yesterday's New York Daily News, but the rest of the media are ignoring it.  No surprise.

    One of the manufacturers of magazines, Magpul, has already promised to move out of Colorado, taking several hundred jobs with them.  Demand has been such that they are working overtime and cannot keep up with orders.  

    Like TL said above, pass in haste, lament at length.  And these bills will not stop anyone from killing.

    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    ...because politicians never consider their career goals before a vote.  

    The right wingers acting like it's the end of the world because they can't have a magazines that carry of 15 shells or that everyone gets a background check.  You would think he outlawed bullets or something.  I would imagine this law effects a fraction or gun owners.

    Many other jurisdictions have enacted these kinds of legislative measures long before Sandy Hook, making the whole 'acting in haste' argument beyond ridiculous.

    I am curious, what king of video game did he kill all those people with, because I read they were hit will bullets, not DVD's.  I know my Pong, Atari2600, Nintendo NES, PS2, Wii, or PS3 never shot bullets, I believe those things come from guns.

    Your forgot to mention the most important part of the findings, that his goal was to kill more people, than Anders Breivik in Norway.  He studied real life mass shoots and 500 real life people were on his sheet of people he wanted to kill.

    Video games may have played a part, along with 1000 other things, but none of it could have been accomplished without the guns.

    I think background checks are good, the rest of it isn't going to work IMO.  But I am growing so tired of the pro-gun people and their never ending ridiculous claims.  Video games are to blame, pleaze, next it will be soda and french fries, while watch Obama on TV.  

    I can't imagine a kid this obsessed with real life mass shootings and 500 real life targets, would not have committed a mass shooting if he didn't have PS3.  But I can say unequivocally, no one can commit as mass shooting without a gun.


    everyone gets a background check (1.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:42:07 PM EST

    So your sister-in-law comes in from out of state and asks to borrow your shotgun to do some bird hunting.  You do a background check and she checks clean.  Several days later she returns the shotgun with an invite to a duck dinner.  She then leaves the state.

    Do you think it is a good use of state resources to prosecute her for failing to do the background check when returning the shotgun?


    Ah, so we've moved on to outright... (none / 0) (#48)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:00:20 PM EST
    lies now.  Here is a link to the bill--please show were your scenario requires a background check.  

    Pro tip--pay close attention to Section 6.


    You need to read more closely (none / 0) (#50)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:33:38 PM EST

    Brother-in-law and sister-in-law don't make the cut.



    You need to read more closely (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:40:54 PM EST
    Please cite the authority supporting the proposition that the return of a firearm to its owner (regardless of relationship) after borrowing said firearm is a "transfer" of the firearm for purposes Colorado HB 13-1229.

    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:09:48 PM EST
    The law requires a background check with some exceptions when transferring possession, ownership is not listed as an exception.  

    If you can find an exception for ownership, please point it out.  


    6(e) - (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:49:10 PM EST



    IOW - You can let someone borrow your gun to go hunting (or fishing, target shooting, trapping) as long as they have any required permits and are doing it in a place where it's legal.  Section (h) also allows a temporary transfer for 72 hours, although the owner may be liable for damages for the transferee's unlawful use of the gun.

    Now, if you want to argue that such a borrowing is exempt from 1229, but that somehow the return of the gun to its owner is not exempt (i.e. it requires a background check), ...

    ... well that would be funny.


    That does not apply (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    Unless your sister in law was hunting in your living room where you transferred the gun to her.

    The section you quote allows sharing of firearms among hunting party members.  It does not exempt transfers to anyone with a hunting license that claims to be going hunting.


    "Living room"? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:37:54 PM EST
    Who said anything about a "living room"?  Oh, wait ... that's right ... you did ...

    ... after I pointed out the obvious exemption in your carefully tailored (but not carefully enough!) hypothetical.  Guess you'll just have to wait till you're in the woods before you hand the gun to your poor sister-in-law.  Any other conditions you want to add to your hypothetical in order to try to make the law appear unfair/unjust/unreasonable?

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    And you (none / 0) (#61)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:05:42 PM EST
    and you stick with her.  Get over it, if you have to do a check to transfer possession, that person is going to have to do a check to transfer possession back.  

    Remember the hypothetical was a clean check was run on the sister-in-law before the transfer, but she broke the law by not running a background check before returning the shotgun.



    Heh, heh, heh (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:30:19 PM EST
    No, you don't.  Temporary transfers are, by definition, temporary, with possession reverting back to the owner.  That's why they're called temporary.  This would also hold true for the other temporary transfer exceptions, like the general 72 hour exception (for any purpose) or when someone takes their gun to be repaired.  Next time you're in Colorado, walk into a gun shop and tell them you need a background check run for your poor sister-in-law who borrowed your shotgun to go hunting.  I'm sure they could use a good laugh.

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    But it's not remotely surprising that you would try that silly argument ...


    You are misreading the law. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:23:03 AM EST

    When possession is transferred, the law requires a background check with certain limited exceptions.  If you transfer possession back it requires another background check with the same limited exceptions.  Who the owner of the firearm is, is not one of the exceptions.  


    I'm "misreading" nothing (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    A "temporary" transfer (without transfer of title or ownership) assumes, by definition, that the gun will revert to the owner after the transfer.  If this was not the case, I could loan a gun to you for 72 hours, or while hunting, or for repair, but you could not return the gun to me without a background check.  In the alternative, if you handed your friend your new gun to look at it (staying in his presence), he couldn't hand it back to you without a background check.

    Absolutely ridiculous.

    If you went to law school, you should demand a refund.


    BTW (none / 0) (#66)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:27:44 AM EST

    At the time of transfer, no one really knows what will happen 72 hours into the future.  By your odd interpretation, if you temporarily loaned a firearm to someone and they failed to return it after 72 hours, you or the borrower be breaking the law.  

    BTW - That's correct (none / 0) (#68)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:53:31 AM EST
    It's just not "odd".

    So Don't Require Backgorund Checks... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    ...because someone has found a ridiculous loophole that in the real world would never be ticketed ?

    Jesus, that is probably the dumbest line for not requiring background checks I have read to date.  Grasping at Straws

    I wish you guys would put this kind of effort into important legislation; they might actually stop sneaking in amendments that have nothing to do with the legislation.

    And I don't believe for a minute, that every time someone handles your gun, which is changing possession, you are required to run a BC.  I know you don't believe it either, but you are certainly inferring it.


    Never be ticketed? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:04:20 PM EST

    Why not, it would be a great way to punish one of those "gun nuts."

    Not so (none / 0) (#45)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    when you note:

    The right wingers acting like it's the end of the world because they can't have a magazines that carry of 15 shells or that everyone gets a background check.  You would think he outlawed bullets or something.  I would imagine this law effects a fraction or gun owners.

     you betray some level of ignorance.

    For example, this link is to the wikipedia entry for the Marlin model 39, a .22 caliber rifle which has been in continuous production since 1891.  There have been over 2.2 million of them produced.  It will come afoul of any generic ban on gun magazines capable of holding, say, 15 rounds because it has always been capable of holding at least 15 rounds in the tubular magazine.  In some versions, it can hold as many as 26 of the .22 short cartridges.

    People do not go on shooting rampages with a .22 like that one.  It's a hunting and a target gun and a good one, too.  But anyone claiming to be trying to limit shootings, mass or otherwise, by imposing blanket bans of guns with magazines over a certain number of rounds is just plain lying.  The mere existence of these guns and that they fall afoul of such blanket bans proves the point.


    No, they're not (none / 0) (#49)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    But anyone claiming to be trying to limit shootings, mass or otherwise, by imposing blanket bans of guns with magazines over a certain number of rounds is just plain lying.  The mere existence of these guns and that they fall afoul of such blanket bans proves the point.

    How does that logic work?

    A.  HB 1224 does not apply to .22 caliber guns (or lever actions), a point even acknowledged by one of its biggest opponents (Magpul).

    B.  Even if it did, how does the existence of a gun with an internal magazine of more than 15 rounds prove that proponents of such laws are "lying"?


    Very good source Yman... (none / 0) (#63)
    by fishcamp on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:08:58 PM EST
    thank you.

    Thanks. I had not seen the new Lanza info. (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#27)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Mar 19, 2013 at 08:14:28 PM EST
    You think Gov. Hickenlooper is going to lose an election because of this?  Yeah, no.

    Oh--and see ya' Magpul.  Hope they take all of the gun fetishists also "promising to move out of Colorado" with them.  


    Well (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:13:49 PM EST

    I hope my flight never gets diverted to Denver when flying to a shooting match.  



    That's a serious issue and not a joke (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:26:25 PM EST
    It regularly happens that people get busted in the NY/NJ airports for having guns in their checked baggage (e.g., they're enroute to a shooting match or to go hunting somewhere) when the plane they were on either was diverted there or is delayed through no fault of their own.  So much so that people arrange their travel to avoid those airports.

    Solution:  if you're in that fix, do not pick up your checked bags but make airport security hold them for you.  Or ship your guns in advance and hope they're there and in good order when you arrive.


    A pistol (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:31:12 PM EST

    A pistol must be shipped overnight ($) to an FFL holder ($).  That solution gets pricey fast.  Mags can go to a hotel though.  

    Site Violator n/t (none / 0) (#57)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:49:56 PM EST