Colorado Assault Weapons Ban

Robert

Robert

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
14,368
Location
Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
The purposed Colorado assault weapons ban has been postponed indefinitely after it failed to make it out of committee. The vote against it was 8-5. While this is great news, our work is not done. My boss spent the day yesterday at the capital testifying against the bill.

This bill would have banned all magazine fed firearms as assault weapons, including handguns. No provision for fixed mags.

Keep calling and writing your state representatives and impress on them how stupid and unconstitutional the bill really is.

If you are not already a member, consider supporting Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. They are on the front line of this fight for our rights.
 
Last edited:
Robert- Looking over various versions of the absurd bill, there was nothing that I saw that indicated provision for banning all magazine fed firearms, just a usual stupid "assault weapons" feature list.

What did I miss that would have enveloped items like a M1, Remington 742, 1911, Beretta 92 or G19? RMGO also seemed indicate such a threat, but never detailed it via text from the proposed bill.

Please elaborate on specific bill content so we can be more knowledgeable about the threats of future infringement.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb23-1230
 
Last edited:
Notice that the "red line" objection to bills like this is the taking (or outlawing of possession) of guns from existing owners. I'll bet that if the bill had had a robust grandfather clause, it would have passed. The antigunners' mistake was that they overreached.
 
AlexanderA said:
Notice that the "red line" objection to bills like this is the taking (or outlawing of possession) of guns from existing owners. I'll bet that if the bill had had a robust grandfather clause, it would have passed. The antigunners' mistake was that they overreached.
Click to expand...

The most recent version (that I saw) had no possession restriction for existing owners. Earlier versions proposed an arcane documentation protocol to prove your legal ownership, which was quickly removed as the sponsors tested the waters.
 
Robert said:
https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023A/bills/2023a_1230_01.pdf

That is the link to the bill. It mentions any magazine fed rifle and makes mention of handguns with an internal magazine. I'm not sure what that means...
Click to expand...

Yes- that's the same one I reviewed. It's same game of having a detachable magazine PLUS a naughty feature that puts most things on the verboten list.

Anyway, the devil is always in the details, and we to make sure our side always fully understands the details and provides an accurate assessment of what potential bill do and don't do.

It really blows that we have to keep going through this crap every legislative session.
 
What I see is a bunch of whining, followed by the bill writer's definitions. No grandfathering is specified, but here's the important part:

18-12-603. Unlawful manufacture, import, purchase, sale, and transfer of ownership of assault weapons prohibited - unlawful possession of rapid-fire trigger activators

So they define "assault weapon" but does NOT say you can't keep what you have. "Transfer of ownership" is not ownership. There's also nothing in there I can see that would prevent people still buying regular semi auto pistols.

But yeah, it's a terrible bill.
 
This is nothing new, but bears repeating: A significant strategy is to propose everything no matter how ridiculous or "unconstitutional," then compromise to get it passed now or at a later time. We have never figured out how to beat this strategy,.

Oh, non-detachable "magazines" for handguns? First thing I thought of was revolvers, if you consider the cylinder as a magazine. And you can bet they will. The second thing was the Broomhandle Mauser, Didn't that have a fixed magazine fed by stripper clips? My memory on that gun is pretty bad, though. There may be others which fit that definition. Maybe that was one of their giveaway points they could <koff-koff> "compromise" on.

Don't forget that attrition is the name of the game for them. If they can decrease circulation of one gun, they can decrease circulation of all guns. A variation on "If they can ban one, they can ban them all."

Eight to five in committee. Boy, that's cutting it close. Let's not pat ourselves on the back on that one. Get involved any way you can in each and every single election from dogcatcher through school boards to the highest honcho.

Terry. 230RN
 
Last edited:
Post #10 for the win YES DO NOT go back to sleep. It's rust on your sheet metal, never sleeps.

GLAD for you CO guys & gals :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
 
"... makes mention of handguns with an internal magazine. I'm not sure what that means..."
One of my handguns has an internal magazine.
index.php

And I have owned Grendel P10s which had internal magazines.
 
I am cynical enough to suspect that some AWBs are deliberately poison pilled so they do not pass, but are put out there to show the sponsors are trying to do something good and the evil meanies are stopping them. You know, rile up the base.
 
The continued proposal and sometimes passing of such laws, demonstrated why Scotus needs more fire in the belly about the RKBA. While Bruen is praised as was Heller, they were not definitive about such issues and riddled with ambiguity. Scotus (if listening to me - ha), should not have remanded cases on the AWB issues (who care about scolding the lower courts - protect the rights as a priority), they should have used the Bruen precedent themselves, to cleanly find for gun rights. That they didn't suggests gun rights support is not so strong in the supposed gun rights supporters in the court for the issues.

Such bills will eventually pass in more states that are blue or purple - even red in a moral panic. A change in the court due to death or scandal will sink strong gun rights decisions, so their strategy of remanding, vague decisions that seem clever but aren't - isn't working as it should. I know folks say, it will work out in a few years, blah, blah - that doesn't work for me. Folks thought abortion (not to discuss that specifically) was safe due to stare decisis and justices saying it was settled law - now it's not. The decisions are all political now.
 
Enjoy it while you can. My state had one that would basically ban all semi-auto rifles and another to ban magazines that held ten rounds or more. Both made it out of committee but never came to a full vote. They will be back with the same or worse next year and I would bet Colorado will do the same. The anti-gunners are never going to quit until they have gotten rid of every gun in the US.

We did get a background check law. Duh. One committtee member said publicly that since the federal government has had one for years this would make no difference at all but still voted for it. I am simply amazed at the thought processes of politicians ---or lack of.
 
GEM said:
The decisions are all political now.
Click to expand...

^^^...and this is what is truly sad. Our forefathers intended for the Judicial branch to be impartial. Now it has become as Partisan as the Media. Their idea of controls and reins on the Government has disintegrated completely. Supreme Court Justices live and make decisions based on how many free cruises they get from their so called "friends". Like the rest of the politicians, it ain't about truth and serving the people, but all about getting rich.

doubleh said:
The anti-gunners are never going to quit until they have gotten rid of every gun in the US.
Click to expand...

,,,,and I believe they will never quit, because they will never get rid of every gun in the U.S. Just ain't gonna happen, IMHO. While many things have turned to dung in our society, including the SCOTUS, I still have a titch of faith in America and Americans and their desire to keep the intent of the Constitution alive. It's just too bad politicians and the SCOTUS have no idea what the average American has to deal with everyday.
 
Robert said:
Just look at England. They banned all firearms, or near enough, and are now going after kitchen knives...
Click to expand...

If what I heard is correct, they also banned pint glass made of actual glass (so now they're plastic). They'd probably ban bricks too, if it didn't mean they'd have tear down all the buildings and dispose of the rubble.

It's much more convenient to blame the weapons, instead of reading some history and understanding that this is about the most civilized and peaceful the human population of the world has ever been.
 
Last edited:
The Bill died in committee



I might be crazy but I'm really wondering if their intent all along wasn't to ban Bump Stocks and Forced Reset Triggers and they threw all that other stuff in intending to concede it and get what it they really wanted all along
 
Last edited:
GEM said:
The continued proposal and sometimes passing of such laws, demonstrated why Scotus needs more fire in the belly about the RKBA. While Bruen is praised as was Heller, they were not definitive about such issues and riddled with ambiguity. Scotus (if listening to me - ha), should not have remanded cases on the AWB issues (who care about scolding the lower courts - protect the rights as a priority), they should have used the Bruen precedent themselves, to cleanly find for gun rights. That they didn't suggests gun rights support is not so strong in the supposed gun rights supporters in the court for the issues.

Such bills will eventually pass in more states that are blue or purple - even red in a moral panic. A change in the court due to death or scandal will sink strong gun rights decisions, so their strategy of remanding, vague decisions that seem clever but aren't - isn't working as it should. I know folks say, it will work out in a few years, blah, blah - that doesn't work for me. Folks thought abortion (not to discuss that specifically) was safe due to stare decisis and justices saying it was settled law - now it's not. The decisions are all political now.
Click to expand...

As noted, that's the shame of it... "all political now."

What irks me is one of the Justices pointing out that no right is absolute. While technically true (as in incarceration and in execution), the problem was the statement was not qualified and many people extend the concept to "we can now limit all rights as far as possible."

And if that's the case, why spell out any rights at all?

The inventors of our country were not dummies, they carefully considered the pros and cons of each clause in the Constitution in light of history and their personal observations. But some Colonies were wary of unpecified very precious rights and wanted them documented.

Thus arose the original Amendments to the constitution... and I note that the Second Amendment was unusually terse and definitive.

And here's why: it was "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers".

Terry, 230RN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LiveLife
  • Locked
Fact check: Would new House/Senate bills BAN assault weapons? - Verdict: CONFIRMED!
Replies
14
Views
1K
Kleanbore
K
A
  • Locked
McCarthy to Introduce Assault Weapons Ban Next Week
2 3
Replies
67
Views
5K
TooTaxed
T
A
  • Locked
Federal Judge Blocks Colorado County's 'Assault Weapons' Ban, Other Localities Agree to Halt Enforce
Replies
1
Views
260
AlexanderA
A
D
  • Locked
Is Ohio the next state to California?
Replies
6
Views
764
thatguy
T
W
  • Locked
Need some wbsites that have info on "assault weapons" and the "assault weapon Ban....
Replies
7
Views
679
mdsteele
M
Back
Top