Colorado sheriffs: Sorry, but these new gun laws would be kind of unenforceable

posted at 4:41 pm on March 18, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Colorado is waiting on Gov. Hickenlooper to sign a couple of new gun-control bills passed by the legislature to be signed into law, including a measure that will limit the sale of high-capacity magazines (which they have so augustly defined as 15 or more rounds) and another expanding requirements for background checks on firearms purchases; funnily enough, the legislation looks pretty similar to some of the ideas the Democrats have been peddling in Washington, and Vice President Biden extended his hearty congratulations to the legislature’s successful endeavor:

Some of the very glaring problems with these seemingly innocuous measures, however, is that they will still not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they’ll impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens, and of course the itty-bitty fact that many magazines can be altered to higher capacities — making enforcement pretty darn difficult, and at least one Colorado sheriff is speaking up. From the Greeley Tribune:

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he won’t enforce either gun-control measure waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper, saying the laws are “unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.” …

Cooke said Democratic lawmakers are uninformed but are scrambling in reaction to recent tragedies in the nation.

“They’re feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable,” he said. …

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.

And he might not be the only one, via Fox News:

The sheriff told the news outlet that he and other county sheriffs “won’t bother enforcing” the laws because it won’t be possible to keep track of how gun owners are complying with the new requirements.

Cooke is joined in his opposition to the proposals by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, who told an angry packed crowd at a meeting on Thursday in Colorado Springs he would stand firm against the bills.

“I can’t tell you when those were sold, bought and purchased. As far as I’m concerned, they were all pre-July 1 if the governor does sign this bill,” he said.

Maketa said the proposed laws were hastily crafted and at least one would be unenforceable. A number of Colorado sheriffs are concerned the laws could lead to registration of gun owners, he said.

Colorado legislators may have rushed through a sloppily-worded, impractical set of laws that will be ineffective in quelling crime and will place still more arbitrary burdens on law-abiding gun owners, say what?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sheriffs might save the free people from the bad ones, yet.

More states are preparing.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I should restate – only free and armed people can save themselves from oppressive governments.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 4:45 PM

The corrupt elected officials are putting LEOS in danger. Maybe the LEOS can give the elected officials some reciprocity.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Colorado legislators may have rushed through a sloppily-worded, impractical set of laws

Good thing Congress would never do that.

rbj on March 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM

That’s the idea.

Flange on March 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM

It just may be fast approaching the time when the ruling class gun grabbers will learn the true meaning of the second amendment.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 4:48 PM

ATF form 4473 already had a small but noticeable change in April 2012. Box # 10 A requires you to check either Hispanic or Latin or Non Hispanic or Latin. Now why would that matter?

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Methinks Democrats are going to rue the day they embarked on their anti-Second Amendment drive in a state like Colorado. My guess is it’s going to be an electoral disaster and drive some significant voter turnout- against them.

Notwithstanding the fact Sheriff Cooke is correct these laws will do nothing to address the issues they are said to be aimed at (so to speak), they are also arbitrary and capricious. Exempli gratia- why 15 bullets? Why not 8 or 11? How do these measures address the laws stated goals and most importantly, do they infringe on the Second Amendment?

My personal prognostication is they do and a case from Colorado will be very likely to reach SCOTUS IMVHO.

Marcus Traianus on March 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Actually all of Colorado’s county sheriffs have unanimously taken the position of denouncing the proposed legislation.

tommer74 on March 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM

The corrupt elected officials are putting LEOS in danger. Maybe the LEOS can give the elected officials some reciprocity.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Politicians, liberals, Muslims, gay and athiest militants all have one very big thing in common: they’re most abusive when they know they are in no danger at all.

I dare you to find me an article from the Kos Kiddies or the All Barack Channel (among many others) that spits on Mohammed as much as it does on Jesus, or calls out the Black Pantloads.

Why does such a thing not exist? Because liberals know very well who is at all likely to inflict pain on their precious hide. And it ain’t the Southern Baptist with a shotgun like they panic about when another gun-grab fails.

MelonCollie on March 18, 2013 at 4:56 PM

We should ban Ferraris. People die every year because of Ferraris. These things are race cars! Do we really need racecars on our streets? Think of how much safer our streets would be without these racecars driving around at high speeds. It is just common sense. For the children. The ban should include any vehicle with one or more exotic, racecar properties such as sharply angled windshields, aggressive styling, pop up headlights, racy colors, or turbo/superchargers. These features make cars inherently dangerous, and none of them serve any practical purpose. I am not proposing taking away anybody’s rights. These are just common sense, to make things safer, for the children. While we are at it, we should ban engines with high piston capacities. Really, an engine with more than 4 pistons serves no real purpose other than an overt display of testosterone. High piston capacity engines make cars faster, and thus more dangerous. Hunting vehicles only have 1 or 2 cylinders, and you don’t hear hunters complaining about a lack of power. Common sense tells us that 4 pistons is enough. For the children. It is also common knowledge that criminals speed away from crime scenes and kill innocent bystanders. Cars should be limited to no more than 30mph. Telecommuting and home delivery services make leaving your house unnecessary anyway, so a 30mph speed limit won’t really affect anybody but criminals. Finally, some criminals travel great distances after committing crimes. We should eliminate high capacity gas tanks. 2 gallons of fuel is enough to run errands or commute to work. A 2 gallon limit will prevent criminals from robbing banks and making high speed long distance escapes, where they could endanger children on their way to school. None of these take away rights. You can still have your cars. These are just common sense measures to keep the dangerous racecars off the streets, and prevent criminals from endangering the children. We can all agree we need to keep the children safe, right?

tdarrington on March 18, 2013 at 4:58 PM

The way the law if written, if my husband owned a gun and he went out of town for a week and left the gun at home, within 48 hours he and I would be breaking the law unless I transferred the registration of the gun to me, and then when he came back, he would have to transfer it back to him. Hickenlooper is an idiot, and I have no doubt that Biden got to him and all the Dems in the Colorado statehouse.

lea on March 18, 2013 at 4:59 PM

It just may be fast approaching the time when the ruling class gun grabbers will learn the true meaning of the second amendment.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Been too long coming.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 5:00 PM

AND YOU’LL NOTE COLORADO DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE MENTALLY ILL AND THEIR ACCESS TO FIREARMS!

But that’s okay, all those flaming liberals ‘feel good’ about themselves. THEY DID SOMETHING!

And when the next tragedy occurs, they’ll be on the capitol steps, with their thumbs up their collective asses, wondering how this could be.

GarandFan on March 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Actually all of Colorado’s county sheriffs have unanimously taken the position of denouncing the proposed legislation.

tommer74 on March 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM

This is how evil becomes a reality. Legislative bodies pass laws and the LEOS refuse to enforce them… AT FIRST… Then as the years go by, one by one those laws begin to be enforced, and like a frog being slowly boiled alive, 20 years later those laws are iron clad.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:03 PM

How do these measures address the laws stated goals and most importantly, do they infringe on the Second Amendment?

My personal prognostication is they do and a case from Colorado will be very likely to reach SCOTUS IMVHO.

Marcus Traianus on March 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM

No one has confidence in the SCOTUS anymore, either. Getting a case there means nothing, as who the hell knows what those f*ckwits will pronounce, and half of the people will cheer, half will boo, and it will settle nothing.

The Constitution is a dead letter in terms of practical application anymore, and the judicial system is screaming joke.

We are no longer a nation of laws, but of men, of petty tyrants, doing whatever the hell they want. It’s not going to end well.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM

20 years later those laws are iron clad.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Hey, it’s been law of the land for 20 years, if you didn’t like it, you should have changed it. In Arizona you can beat your wife with a stick no bigger than your thumb. It’s been on the books for years, so it must be ok. Only if it is a garden variety beating.

tdarrington on March 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM

ATF form 4473 already had a small but noticeable change in April 2012. Box # 10 A requires you to check either Hispanic or Latin or Non Hispanic or Latin. Now why would that matter?

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 4:51 PM

So, they going to check everyone’s DNA or does the one drop concept still apply? Checking the right box can just get so confusing! Isn’t this profiling?

a capella on March 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Fastest way to turn CO solid blue for eternity.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I’ve written and called the Governor and let him know my thoughts. The next thing here is to get a state constitutional amendment on the ballot for the next election to reverse these new laws. I think it has already been started.

tommer74 on March 18, 2013 at 5:07 PM

These incoherent, incompetently-drafted and overreaching bills are not just Colorado’s problem. This same legislative language is being introduced in many states, and Sen. Schumer has introduced it in the Senate.

The language likely comes from Michael Bloomberg’s misnamed MAIG ( hilariously, mayors who belong to MAIG have a far higher rate of criminal convictions than the gun owners they are trying to attack ).

Bloomberg’s MAIG is very well funded and utterly incompetent in basic drafting skills apparently … unless the incompetence is a deliberate strategy.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM

AND YOU’LL NOTE COLORADO DOES NOTHING TO ADDRESS THE MENTALLY ILL AND THEIR ACCESS TO FIREARMS!

But that’s okay, all those flaming liberals ‘feel good’ about themselves. THEY DID SOMETHING!

And when the next tragedy occurs, they’ll be on the capitol steps, with their thumbs up their collective asses, wondering how this could be.

GarandFan on March 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

… and passing more restrictive legislation banning various firearms, magazines above eight rounds, taxing ammunition to the moon, registering legal law-abiding citizens even further… and *still* not doing a damn thing that would actually address the problem.

But in the end, ‘addressing the problem’ is not really what they’re trying to do to begin with, now… is it?

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Cutting crime isn’t an aim, and the authors have all but admitted it. I also understand that in one state, maybe it is Colorado, that funds are being withheld from sheriff’s departments until the sheriff’s back these new intended laws.

Liam on March 18, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Meanwhile SCOTUS is reviewing requirement to prove citizenship to vote.

Everything is 180 degrees out of phase.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Marcus Traianus on March 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM

This is just a guess, Magpul threatened to leave Colorado and 500 jobs with them if the legislation was too onerous. There are already 5, 10, 20, 30, and even higher capacity magazines. The 15 round magazine would be somewhat unique to the AR platform and would guarantee Magpul a certain future manufacturing 15 round magazines if everything over that amount became illegal.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM

What’s needed is legislation that makes it illegal and a CRIME, enforced by fines and imprisonment, to suggest, sponsor, vote affirmatively for, or sign *any* legislation that restricts *any* law-abiding citizen’s second amendment rights in *any* way, be it impeding the ability to legally purchase weapons of *any* kind, ammo of *any* kind, magazines of *any* kind, etc – up to and including trying to add taxes to these purchases (beyond normal sales tax rates), etc.

I want to see some f*cking politicians in JAIL, suffering some personal consequences when they try to infringe our rights.

Midas on March 18, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Someone posted something similar to the following the other day:

People who think the government is trying to ban guns are paranoid.
Paranoid people should not be allowed to own guns.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Isn’t this profiling?

a capella on March 18, 2013 at 5:06 PM

It darn sure is considering there already boxes for
American Indian or Alaskan Native
Asian
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Other Paciffic Islander and of course
White

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:16 PM

No amount of gun control legislation will ever be enough. The liberals championing the Colorado legislation will certainly blame its failure on it not going far enough.

Then they’ll move on to the next step with the ultimate goal of complete confiscation.

Curtiss on March 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM

20 years later those laws are iron clad.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Hey, it’s been law of the land for 20 years, if you didn’t like it, you should have changed it. In Arizona you can beat your wife with a stick no bigger than your thumb. It’s been on the books for years, so it must be ok. Only if it is a garden variety beating.

tdarrington on March 18, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Most folks here are unaware how long the battle to disarm American Citizens has been going on. It has only been going on since 1968, which granted is longer than many people here have been alive, but in a realistic sense really isn’t very long.

It began when the Marxists behind the “Hippy Movement” began their assent to power. And yes, you are absolutely correct, that is their strategy. Pass unconstitutional laws knowing full well that they will not be enforced at first, but that eventually they will become the precedents upon which later far more restrictive laws will be based and upheld.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Actually all of Colorado’s county sheriffs have unanimously taken the position of denouncing the proposed legislation.

tommer74 on March 18, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Absolutely! And Terry Maketa is my Sheriff – and he’s been very vocal about this – says he “will not enforce these laws, and will interfere with anyone who tries to in his county”.

My son borrowed some of my guns to go target shooting a couple weeks ago, and I’m just getting them back this week. According to this new law, I would have to run a background check on my own son for that.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:19 PM

This is just a guess, Magpul threatened to leave Colorado and 500 jobs with them if the legislation was too onerous. There are already 5, 10, 20, 30, and even higher capacity magazines. The 15 round magazine would be somewhat unique to the AR platform and would guarantee Magpul a certain future manufacturing 15 round magazines if everything over that amount became illegal.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Nope. The standard magazine size for an AR is 30 rounds. Most full-size 9mm handguns come standard with 15+ round magazines. And the law bans 15+, so Magpul would be stuck making 14 round magazines and under. Nothing in this law is a sop to Magpul. Quite the contrary.

stvnscott on March 18, 2013 at 5:23 PM

This is just a guess, Magpul threatened to leave Colorado and 500 jobs with them if the legislation was too onerous. There are already 5, 10, 20, 30, and even higher capacity magazines. The 15 round magazine would be somewhat unique to the AR platform and would guarantee Magpul a certain future manufacturing 15 round magazines if everything over that amount became illegal.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Actually, they’ve said they WILL leave Colorado if these laws are passed and signed. And counting subcontractors, they have about 600 jobs to take with them – along with their $85 million + per year revenue.

I’m sure they will develop a 15 round magazine to meet the law, but they have said it’s more a matter of principle that they cannot remain in a state that does not allow it’s citizens to buy a major line of their products. They have said they believe the hypocrisy of such would hurt their business nationwide.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM

BTW – Rhonda Fields, the Demtard legislator from Aurora who sponsored several of these bills, has a pretty good criminal record – enough that she likely would not qualify for a CCW and perhaps enough to not pass a background check to buy a gun.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:27 PM

fourdeucer, your “guess” is to allege that Magpul conspired with the Colorado legislature to pass a bill that would aid their business position?

That’s a load of BS. Magpul is not any happier with the 15 round limit than they were with 10. Its the additional requirements on manufacturers that Magpul pointed to as the reason for moving manufacturing out of Colorado. And Magpul has given Colorado residents priority before the effective date of the legislation for magazines that would then be illegal.

Don’t smear Magpul with made up innuendo.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Colorado Constitution Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).

AcidReflux on March 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM

The point of these laws is not to enforce the consistently, but to enforce them when and upon whom the State feels necessary to enforce them.

29Victor on March 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Over at think progress all the imbecilic ignoramus reprobate leftards are calling for the sheriff’s job…of course.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Nope. The standard magazine size for an AR is 30 rounds. Most full-size 9mm handguns come standard with 15+ round magazines. And the law bans 15+, so Magpul would be stuck making 14 round magazines and under. Nothing in this law is a sop to Magpul. Quite the contrary.

stvnscott on March 18, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Not quite right – 15 is the max limit. However, the bill also includes wording about “magazines that can be easily modified to hold more than 15 rounds”. So it will affect lots more magazines than just those that are currently larger than 15 rounds. It also affects shotgun magazines “that can be modified to hold more than 8 shells”.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Don’t forget about Connecticut please; the “Sandy Hook Commission” just issued an interim report to the Governor which is full of extreme proposals:

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/ctnj.php/archives/entry/sandy_hook_commission_issues_interim_report/

The commission recommended “Instituting a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding device in excess of 10 rounds except for military and police use.”

According to the report, the commission recognized that certain sporting events may at times seek to utilize higher capacity magazines. However, the consensus of the commission was that the spirit of sportsmanship can be maintained with lower capacity magazines.

Some of the draft recommendations the group approved go further than the proposals being discussed by either the governor or the legislature.

This commission supports registration and is open to confiscation. They are so far out there, that I suspect the liberal Governor is simply using their extremist positions to make himself look like a moderate.

Let’s be honest, if CT didn’t have so many gun companies, they’d outright ban the second amendment and take their chances in court. We’re in the political fight of our lives in this state, Governor Malloy wants to one up Cuomo, but the legislature is starting to slightly waver.

Daemonocracy on March 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM

And Magpul has given Colorado residents priority before the effective date of the legislation for magazines that would then be illegal.

Don’t smear Magpul with made up innuendo.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Yup – agree fully with your comments.
I got 10 a couple days ago, and waiting on backorder for another 5.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:33 PM

The point of these laws is not to enforce the consistently, but to enforce them when and upon whom the State feels necessary to enforce them.

29Victor on March 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Exactly. These laws are a setup for targeted tyranny.

stvnscott on March 18, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Years ago I purchased a Springfield Armory XD 9mm so my wife can have something in the home for self defense when I leave on business. It holds 16 rounds. The magban makes it a crime to transfer these magazines even to family members. If signed into law it will be legal to leave the gun but not the magazine. And because of the “readily convertible” language in the bill, I can’t even go out and by a 10 round magazine for her because all XD mags are “readily convertible”. This ban essentially outlaws all magazines that don’t have a welded bottom which is basically 90% of the magazines sold. I hope this is vetoed but if signed into law, it needs to be taken to court and overturned based on Heller v DC. This is a defacto ban on almost all guns. The moron who submitted the bill, Rhonda Fields claims she had no idea how far sweeping the law actually is but when asked if she would have drafted it differently after learning of this, she said No.

Outrageous.

jawkneemusic on March 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

The point of these laws is not to enforce the consistently, but to enforce them when and upon whom the State feels necessary to enforce them.

29Victor on March 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM

That’s a definite concern. Although my county sheriff has said he will not enforce them, we have heard nothing from the municipal police or State Patrol. I can easily see the CSP setting up checkpoints on the highway in from Nebraska (nearest Cabela’s) and stopping people possibly coming back home with loads of illegal guns and magazines.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

NY’s SAFE Act nabs its first in entrapment.

Wassell allegedly first sold an illegal DelTon DTI-15 assault rifle to an undercover officer in January. Investigators say because the rifle was outfitted with additional features including a pistol grip, a telescoping butt stock, and a bayonet mount, it is classified as an illegal assault weapon under the penal law. For that alleged sale, Wassell is charged with felony criminal sale of an illegal weapon.

In the second alleged sale, investigators say Wassell sold an undercover officer an Armalite AR-10 Magnum Semiautomatic Rifle in February, in violation of the then recently passed NY SAFE Act, which made illegal the transfer, sale, exchange and disposal of an assault weapon to a person unauthorized to possess such a weapon. Wassell is facing a misdemeanor for the alleged violation of the NY SAFE Act.

Investigators say because the rifle was outfitted with additional features including a pistol grip, a telescoping butt stock, and a bayonet mount, it is classified as an illegal assault weapon under the penal law.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM

God bless my sheriff John Cooke. Not often that I’m proud to live in Weld County but I sure am today.

We have all been calling, emailing, facebooking, etc Hickenlooper asking for him not to sign these bills. If you want an idea of the numbers in opposition to the bill vs those for it I dare you to find over a handful of pro-bill notes on Hickenlooper’s facebook vs people that want these bills buried: https://www.facebook.com/JohnHickenlooper

If he actually signs these bills it will be the biggest spit in the face of the majority voters in the state in as long as I can remember. 2/3rds of Coloradoans are against these bills or think they go to far. If Hickenlooper carries on with these bills he will be representing Bloomberg and Washington instead of the people who elected him.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 5:39 PM

The way Colorado politicians think – they will pass laws to close schools and movie theaters……

redguy on March 18, 2013 at 5:42 PM

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I am totally supportive of Magpul sticking to their principals and if that leads them to relocate good for them for not buckling to the State. My comment was only a guess and I thought as a carrot to Magpul, Colorado increased the magazine capacity to 15 to keep that revenue coming in.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Dang it… based on the photo I thought this thread was about Hugh Hefner. ;-)

TheLoudTalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Don’t smear Magpul with made up innuendo.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM

I apologize if that is how you took that, I support Magpul as I have stated, my GUESS was that the LEGISLATURE increased the size to try and keep Magpul not that Magpul tried to influence the legislature.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Colorado got the elected officials they deserve.
Conservatives should start campaigning on this now for whenever the legislature is up for election again.

Iblis on March 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I am totally supportive of Magpul sticking to their principals and if that leads them to relocate good for them for not buckling to the State. My comment was only a guess and I thought as a carrot to Magpul, Colorado increased the magazine capacity to 15 to keep that revenue coming in.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:43 PM

The 15 round limit wasn’t the carrot they tried to throw in for Magpul. They added language that made it legal for illegal mags to be manufactured in the state, as long as they weren’t sold within Colorado. Magpul basically threw the BS flag at them and said they would still move out if the bill passed. The bill also requires that the manufacturer stamp all magazines with a date of production and serial number so it can be determined when it was made/bought (i.e. after the effective date of the law) and can be tracked – so that adds to Magpul’s burden of production if they stay here.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Colorado got the elected officials they deserve.
Conservatives should start campaigning on this now for whenever the legislature is up for election again.

Iblis on March 18, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Not waiting for that. Petition drive to recall Dem State Senator Morse (Colorado Springs area) is already underway.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Box # 10 A requires you to check either Hispanic or Latin or Non Hispanic or Latin. Now why would that matter?

It matters quite a bit. Naturally, as an Hispanic or Latin, you are considered likely to support the end game of our Leftists in power, who need to know what numbers they may have available, and might be considered to be called upon in a dire national emergency to act against those that check off Non-Hispanics/Latins since they are obviously anarchists intent to overthrow our benevolent government the first chance they get.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM

do they have to pass it to know what’s in it?

can pay a fine and opt out until I use my gun?

tomg51 on March 18, 2013 at 5:53 PM

It matters quite a bit. Naturally, as an Hispanic or Latin, you are considered likely to support the end game of our Leftists in power, who need to know what numbers they may have available, and might be considered to be called upon in a dire national emergency to act against those that check off Non-Hispanics/Latins since they are obviously anarchists intent to overthrow our benevolent government the first chance they get.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Better yet – you might be a member of a Mexican drug cartel, in which case your criminal background is automatically ignored, so you can buy whatever you want, including full auto weapons direct from the DOJ / ATF…..

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:53 PM

SECTION 3. Safety clause.The general assembly hereby finds,
determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

From HB-13-1228

HB-13-1228 imposes a tax to pay for the background check. A tax that is necessary for teh preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

SMH

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Feel it, legislate it, await Court to rule on it…that’s all these effin’ libiots know how to do….after 22 yrs there, I left this state and headed home to Tx 2 yrs ago…no regrets as Boulder spews into the metro area….

hillsoftx on March 18, 2013 at 5:55 PM

My apologies fourdeucer, I’ve seen far too much conspiracy thinking among people who should be united to fight this stuff and I misinterpreted your comment.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 5:55 PM

do they have to pass it to know what’s in it?
can pay a fine and opt out until I use my gun?

tomg51 on March 18, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Yes – standard Demtard procedure now.

The one “bright spot” in all of this, if you can call it that, is that whatever we currently own is grandfathered in as legal to possess.
However – you can’t legally sell it or give it to any of your family.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Thank-you for the information.

fourdeucer on March 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Colorado: Home of “unenforceable” gun laws AND legal pot smoking. Nice combination.

KS Rex on March 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM

To add insult to injury, the following Wednesday, I received an email containing the following language from a member of County Sheriffs Of Colorado: “…I have been advised by a reliable source at the Capitol that the Dems are seriously not pleased with the CSOC positions on the gun bills, and given the potential for a real salary bill to be introduced as you shall see from a follow-up email from” (an unnamed sheriff), “support of SB197 would put us in a more favorable light for salary bill support from the Dems. I do not believe we would be sacrificing our principles or positions on the other gun bills by supporting SB197.” “…Please let us know what you think on this proposal ASAP as I need to get a letter from us to the Senate Dems before the close of business today.” As I see it, senate Dems have made it known, “sheriffs, obey or no pay for you.”

Sheriff Terry Maketa link

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM

God bless my sheriff John Cooke. Not often that I’m proud to live in Weld County but I sure am today.
deuce on March 18, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Dittos on the Sheriff – and mine as well – Terry Maketa, El Paso County.
These guys are sure making some waves – gotta love em.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I personally am starting to think that people who promote and vote for unconstitutional laws should tried for treason and executed.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:18 PM

1934

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Dang it… based on the photo I thought this thread was about Hugh Hefner. ;-)

TheLoudTalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Hickypooper only wishes he looked as good as Hef…..

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM

I personally am starting to think that people who promote and vote for unconstitutional laws should tried for treason and executed.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM

You got my vote on that.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM

You got my vote on that.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Careful what you wish for. The person deciding could be as wacko as dante when it comes to the constitution.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM

The one “bright spot” in all of this, if you can call it that, is that whatever we currently own is grandfathered in as legal to possess.
However – you can’t legally sell it or give it to any of your family.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Don’t get swindled into thinking that is a “bright spot”. Basically that means after one generation has come to pass in Colorado none of the items grandfathered in will be legally able to exist in Colorado. May take them 60, 70, or 80 years, but they eventually get their end goal of complete removal of the items.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

So how did all these Democrats get elected in Colorado? Wonder what will happen in 2014? Thank goodness voter fraud doesn’t happen. Cause I am sure all these Dims were elected fair and square. Only 2 or 3 vote per democratic voter instead of the 6 that is normal is other states.

odannyboy on March 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Careful what you wish for. The person deciding could be as wacko as dante when it comes to the constitution.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I would argue the 50 states make the decision. Then we will not need term limits. Bad congress critters will not live long enough to get a second term.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I would argue the 50 states make the decision.
astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahaha…breathe…hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Places like California, New York and Vermont might like that. Though they would declare any person not willing to follow Roe, or 0bamacrae, guilty of not following the constitution therefore guilty of treason and sent promptly to the gallows.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:15 PM

So how did all these Democrats get elected in Colorado? Wonder what will happen in 2014? Thank goodness voter fraud doesn’t happen. Cause I am sure all these Dims were elected fair and square. Only 2 or 3 vote per democratic voter instead of the 6 that is normal is other states.

odannyboy on March 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Half of California moved here over the last decade or so, fleeing the mess of a state they created, only to come here and do the same thing to Colorado. Lots of younger voters that haven’t faced responsibility and reality yet, and last…..Boulder. That is my guess of how they got so many Dem votes here.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Don’t get swindled into thinking that is a “bright spot”. Basically that means after one generation has come to pass in Colorado none of the items grandfathered in will be legally able to exist in Colorado. May take them 60, 70, or 80 years, but they eventually get their end goal of complete removal of the items.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Hence my “if you can call it that” comment.
However, as a lot of our county sheriffs are saying, the law is unenforceable – which is a factor in our favor for the inevitable legal battle.
I have about 50 30 round magazines right now (some .223, some 7.62), and a bunch of 17 round mags for my M&P9 – and the state has no proof that I even have any of them. None of them have date stamps or serial numbers, so even if the state found out that I have them, they could never prove in court whether those mags belong to me or my sons, or whether they were transferred to someone else after the effective date of the law.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Places like California, New York and Vermont might like that. Though they would declare any person not willing to follow Roe, or 0bamacrae, guilty of not following the constitution therefore guilty of treason and sent promptly to the gallows.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:15 PM

You think there are more blue states than red states?

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 6:17 PM

So how did all these Democrats get elected in Colorado? Wonder what will happen in 2014? Thank goodness voter fraud doesn’t happen. Cause I am sure all these Dims were elected fair and square. Only 2 or 3 vote per democratic voter instead of the 6 that is normal is other states.

odannyboy on March 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Heavy concentration of former Kalifornians in the Denver-Boulder metro area. That area has the most population, so it swings the elections – just like Chicago does to Illinois. Geographically speaking, most of Colorado is very red – but it’s more rural and therefore less population density – also much like Illinois.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Half of California moved here over the last decade or so, fleeing the mess of a state they created, only to come here and do the same thing to Colorado.

The wife and I were considering leaving CA for CO, but if half CA’s population has beaten us there, CO has already been despoiled. I’ve lived with enough Californians right here in CA without having to put up with that many relocated ones elsewhere.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 5:18 PM

1934

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Thank you for playing, but that would be the wrong answer. Miller V US was not an actual gun grabbing attempt. We got stuck with the Miller ruling because… Miller died before his appeal reached SCOTUS who would over rule it even today.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Half of California moved here over the last decade or so, fleeing the mess of a state they created, only to come here and do the same thing to Colorado. Lots of younger voters that haven’t faced responsibility and reality yet, and last…..Boulder. That is my guess of how they got so many Dem votes here.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 6:15 PM

That’s about right – mostly the Peoples’ Republik of Boulder – but a lot of the Denver metro area as a whole (or should I say hole). I’ve watched the shift over the last 30 years – mainly started in the 90s when the major exodus of companies and people from Kalifornicatia started. Shoot – 15 to 20 years ago we had a Republican governor and Republican controlled legislature.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Hence my “if you can call it that” comment.
However, as a lot of our county sheriffs are saying, the law is unenforceable – which is a factor in our favor for the inevitable legal battle.
I have about 50 30 round magazines right now (some .223, some 7.62), and a bunch of 17 round mags for my M&P9 – and the state has no proof that I even have any of them. None of them have date stamps or serial numbers, so even if the state found out that I have them, they could never prove in court whether those mags belong to me or my sons, or whether they were transferred to someone else after the effective date of the law.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

They have the proof now.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Thank you for playing, but that would be the wrong answer. Miller V US was not an actual gun grabbing attempt. We got stuck with the Miller ruling because… Miller died before his appeal reached SCOTUS who would over rule it even today.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Maybe cozmo was referring to this?

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Half of California moved here over the last decade or so, fleeing the mess of a state they created, only to come here and do the same thing to Colorado. Lots of younger voters that haven’t faced responsibility and reality yet, and last…..Boulder. That is my guess of how they got so many Dem votes here.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Facts are not useful things when making emotional arguments. Those people moving to CO from California, the majority of them were only temporary residents of the State of California, not Californian’s. Not that I expect anyone trying to blame their problems on California to understand the difference or care for that matter.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Try again yourself. I said nothing about Miller.

1934 National Firearms Act.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

is that they will still not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they’ll impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens,

That is the goal.

CW on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

The wife and I were considering leaving CA for CO, but if half CA’s population has beaten us there, CO has already been despoiled. I’ve lived with enough Californians right here in CA without having to put up with that many relocated ones elsewhere.

hawkeye54 on March 18, 2013 at 6:20 PM

If I were you I’d be heading for Texas, Wyoming or Montana – and within the next few years I just might, if Colorado doesn’t swing back to the right after this whole gun fiasco.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Hence my “if you can call it that” comment.
However, as a lot of our county sheriffs are saying, the law is unenforceable – which is a factor in our favor for the inevitable legal battle.
dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Yup, and it only takes 1 person to hang a jury. If a person ever had to go to court for one of these idiotic laws, I would hope if taken all the way to trial there would be at least one decent 2nd amendment supporter that would hang the jury every time. If there isn’t at least 1 out of 6 people that support the 2nd amendment here, it is time to move.

deuce on March 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Sometimes SWalker gets so focused on a tree she gets lost in the forest.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:27 PM

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

If you truly believe the Dems gun-control fantasies end with what Colorado passed, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Soon, possessing 30rd mags will be a felony.

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Try again yourself. I said nothing about Miller.

1934 National Firearms Act.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

The 1934 National Firearms Act was a direct result of Miller V US. You do know that, right?

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM

They have the proof now.

bgibbs1000 on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Oh darn – they all just fell out of my truck and into the lake on my way home…..
I guess I really don’t have any of those things…..

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM

SWalker, originally the NFA of 1934 was going to also include all handguns – imposing a $200 tax on each transfer (recall that you could buy a new decent quality handgun back then for a fifth of that) – just like sawed off shotguns, short barreled rifles and fully automatic machine guns. It was amended to remove that, but you can still see artifacts of that in the structure of the law.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Well, we covered the bases, between the NFA and the CGA, the progs got a lot. bastages.

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Maybe cozmo was referring to this?

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934

tom daschle concerned on March 18, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Miller V US was the Court case that caused the 1934 National Firearms Act.

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:30 PM

The 1934 National Firearms Act was a direct result of Miller V US. You do know that, right?

SWalker on March 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Ya’ got that backwards. Miller was a direct result of NFA.

cozmo on March 18, 2013 at 6:30 PM

If you truly believe the Dems gun-control fantasies end with what Colorado passed, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

Soon, possessing 30rd mags will be a felony.

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 6:28 PM

I have no such fantasies or beliefs. This is just the beginning – which is why BiteMe and company were so interested and involved in this little flyover state – which is why we need to cut it off at the knees now with legal challenges and a refusal from LE to enforce any of it.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM

SWalker, no Miller was the result of the NFA of 1934. It was the appeal of a prosecution under it. Miller was convicted of possession of an unregistered sawed off shotgun.

SPQR on March 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Yes. Chop and block.

With whatever tools are necessary.

Washington Nearsider on March 18, 2013 at 6:36 PM

I have about 50 30 round magazines right now (some .223, some 7.62), and a bunch of 17 round mags for my M&P9 – and the state has no proof that I even have any of them. None of them have date stamps or serial numbers, so even if the state found out that I have them, they could never prove in court whether those mags belong to me or my sons, or whether they were transferred to someone else after the effective date of the law.

dentarthurdent on March 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I have not read the current bill, but the interesting bit is where the burden of proof lies. Do you have to prove you possessed them before the ban or do they have to prove you didn’t? In any case, you can count on confiscation at the very least if you ever end up on their radar.

stvnscott on March 18, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 2