Colorado Gun Control Bills Revealed

 

“We are taking a measured approach that respects the rights of hunters and sportsmen,” said House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver. By now we’ve heard that talking point, designed to separate the bulk of America’s lawful gun owners from hunters, ad nauseum. The line’s been repeated by everyone advocating civilian disarmament from the commander in chief down to the lowliest New York asemblyman. Looks like Colorado Speaker Ferrandino got the memo, too. His legislative minions, though, have stopped short of an outright ban on “assault weapons.” Instead, Colorado gun-grabbers are taking a slightly different approach to regulating them. They’ve decided to “hold manufacturers and sellers of assault-style weapons legally liable for damage inflicted with such firearms” . . .

It may come as a surprise to Centennial State lawmakers that federal law has protected firearms manufacturers and gun dealers against liability suits since 2005. As for exposing individual gun owners to civil liability, the law would mean a de facto ban on the regulated guns by forcing Joe and Jane Gunowner to buy liability insurance in order to own an AR.

But that’s only the beginning of what they have in mind. According to denverpost.com, here’s a list of some of the other civilian disarmament measures on Colorado Dems’ wish list:

• Limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds;

• Stricter notification requirements so that mental health professionals can identify mentally ill people who pose a risk and then notify officials to put them into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s gun background check database;

• Strengthening laws to prevent those with domestic violence convictions or protection orders against them from buying firearms;

• Imposing fees for gun background checks, which now are conducted for free;

• Requiring in-person training for concealed-weapons permits, which now can be obtained through online courses;

• Requiring universal background checks on all gun sales, something Democrats say can be done without gun registration;

• Banning concealed weapons on college campuses.

Colorado’s Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper’s been cagey on the proposals. So far, he’s only said he supports the universal background checks and, according to a spokesman, “is open to a discussion about magazine limits and other ideas designed to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” In other words, with Democrats holding both houses of the legislature and the Governor’s office, Colorado may be the new New York.

46 Responses to Colorado Gun Control Bills Revealed

  1. avatarLance says:

    We won in Illinois so call all your state Reps and Senators pill thousands of calls on them and kill there bans!

  2. avatarFrank Williams says:

    If they can “hold manufacturers and sellers of assault-style weapons legally liable for damage inflicted with such firearms” then I guess next up is holding auto makers/dealers and ice cream parlors liable for damage inflicted with their products.

    Can we hold the legislature liable for the consequences of their dumb laws, when someone’s killed in a home invasion because they didn’t have the firearms they needed to protect themselves?

    • avatarrehafner says:

      Federal law prevents our local Democrat Dorks from enacting legislation holding firearms manufacturers liable.

      • avatarJustAJ says:

        Federal Law (FOPA) provides safe passage for gun owners in possession of their firearms that are passing through states that are not their state of residence. But htat hasn’t stopped NY from repeatedly (and successfully) prosecuting out of staters for violating NY gun laws.

  3. avatarWilliam says:

    “STOP KILLING OUR CHILDREN”. If you put her brain on the edge of a razor blade, it’d look like a BB rolling down a four-lane highway.

    • avatarthatoneguy says:

      I’m sure she probably had to have someone hold her abortion vacuum for her so she could write that slogan on her little sign…

    • avataranonymous says:

      Heh. Show up at the next anti-gun rally with signs that say

      “Stop Killing Our (Unborn) Children”

      and hand them out to the crowd.

  4. avatarDrVino says:

    “Stricter notification requirements so that mental health professionals can identify mentally ill people who pose a risk and then notify officials to put them into the Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s gun background check database”

    I know it will draw the ire of many, but that above is the single most effective thing we can do to prevent many of the mass shootings we’ve seen over the years.

    • avatarBrian says:

      IMO if they are dangerous enough to be flagged, why the hell are they out on the streets? If they aren’t to that point then this could be used as a defacto ban also. Anyone getting some kind of treatment could be flagged with nothing more than an opinion. What if the administration decides that any soldier coming from a war zone or involved in any kind of fighting gets automatically flagged as potential dangers due to PTSD?

      • avatarKeithF says:

        I agree Brian, while I support the concept of mental health being factored due process MUST take place before a restriction is imposed

        • avatarDDay says:

          Look at the nuts. Everyone knew the Arizona shooter was bleeping crazy. He was so crazy he was tossed from his college. The professor was afraid to turn his back on him, all the classmates were scared of him, etc. And what do they do? They kick him out and make him societies problem and not their anymore.

          Everyone kicks the can or does nothing. Look at CT, CO, Columbine, Va Tech. They were all nuts and no one took any action. Look at the nuts, getting them help and keeping them from guns and leave everyone else alone.

      • avatarJoshinGA says:

        Exactly the point I make to people who say we need universal background checks to prevent criminals from getting guns. Lets ignore the obvious (black market), but if a person cannot be trusted to buy a gun, should they really be on the street without custodial care in the first place?

        • avatarandarm16 says:

          There is a very specific reason that the federal standard is set at what it is. The FEDs require that one be declared mentally ill through some form of due process. (Note that if you read the fine print, it comes down to being “adjudicated” (meaning declared by a judge) mentally defective. ) This isn’t because of the NRA wanting those considered mentally ill to have guns, this is because the law says that you can’t be deprived of your rights without due process.

          Note, that this due process requirement might not apply to the states, as Illinois (currently) requires anyone who has sought any form of mental health treatment (other than for alcoholism) to turn in their FOID card and guns, and wait five years after the end of their treatment to reapply.

      • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

        That is what they will do. In my opinion psychiatry is mostly quack science, and the recently released DSM-5 proves how corrupt that industry has become. My fear is when the recommendations of the AMA and APA are incorporated into any new law, “we the people” open ourselves up to a dogs breakfast of administrative rules and procedural enforcement, creating entire new categories of prohibited persons.

        Also, look at the comments from the WaPo regarding the RF profile piece. According to the anti’s anyone who wants to own a gun for self defense is paranoid delusional and should automatically be judged unfit to own one. When they say “gun nut” they mean it in the most perjorative way possible.

        In other words Anti’s have already decided all gun owners are crazy. They are mounting a massive propaganda campaign to convince the uncommitted “do something” crowd of the same. They would be more than happy to have gun owners assist in thier own disarmament through support of a large “mental health loophole” allowing 2A infringement.

    • avatarST says:

      It is the most ineffective thing we can do as a society to prevent mass shootings. We may as well demand that the Sun pay a carbon tax.

      The limitations of the Brady System are logistical. We can pass laws all day that mandate reporting requirements, and it will do nothing to clear the immense backlogs of files at the state and local level which have yet to be included in the BG check system. Bad guys fall through the cracks because sending court & mental health paperwork takes time. Until we can beam documents instantly across the country like something out of Star Trek, no background check system will ever be up to date enough to actually prevent crime.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      I disagree. If mass shootings are what you are trying to curtail, then eliminating gun free zones would be more effective. The false positive risks of this approach and the high probability of a potential mass shooter not being in the system or even currently in treatment, renders this approach ineffective and potentially harmful to those who might be innocent and not dangerous.

      However, mass shooting are relatively rare, so if gun violence as a whole is what you are trying to curtail then you aren’t even in the right ballpark.

  5. avatarSammy says:

    To the bearer of the “Stop Killing Our Kids” sign. OK

  6. avatarIrideducs says:

    I am in Colorado and I will move if I have to. How a government treats natural rights (Life, Liberty, Property, Self-Defense, etc.) is an indication of how corrupt it is. Things like a 10 round magazine limit (when it is obvious that it is simply window dressing to make liberty illiterates feel “safer”) are how corrupt governments begin to exercise more control over subjects. But, it is not just citizen disarmament that is a violation of liberty. Civilian disarmament just happens to be a linchpin. As I said I will vote with my feet if I have to.

    • avatarAvid Reader says:

      I’m in Colorado and can’t move. That motivates me all the more to call, write, and email the various life forms that claim to represent us. Hickenlooper won’t commit to anything until he puts his finger to the wind to see how it might impact is national ambitions.

      I miss Bill Owens.

  7. avatarCliff says:

    If we required citizens to purchase insurance against having their absentee ballots lost or otherwise corrupted, or charged a citizen a fee for mailing them an absentee ballot, or for deciding they wanted a brick and mortar polling place, or required they pay for a civics class before being licensed by the state to cast a ballot, doesn’t that fall under the heading of a “Poll Tax” which I am pretty sure was struck down as being unconstitutional sometime back.

    How are these “fees for NICS”, insurance for “assault weapons” or training requirements before you can exercise your guaranteed right to keep and bear arms any less of a violation of our civil rights under the constitution and therefore the equivalent of an illegal Poll Tax?

    If you allow the government to define the terms under which you may exercise a right then you have relinquished that right and agreed that it is not your natural right to be protected against infringement by the government, but a right defined and granted BY the government. Can you say, “Slippery slope?”

    Further, how does the government stipulating gun free zones in schools equate to the 7th Circuit Court ruling regarding Illinois concealed carry? If you have a constitutional right to self defense in your home and on the street, how can you NOT have that right just because you enter a school? Even if the 7th Circuit does not represent Colorado, whatever court does, if they contradict the 7th, there is yet another grounds for a SCOTUS appeal.

    • avatarRalph says:

      how can you NOT have that right just because you enter a school?

      That question has already been asked and answered by SCOTUS. Gun bans in “sensitive locations” are legal. Schools were specifically listed as sensitive locations.

    • avatarGoldiGlocks says:

      We started slipping down that slope about a hundred years ago. Google ‘Fabian Socialism’ if you want to see the bottom. We are not going back up, save a revolution, at which point all current discussions become moot. Considering the nature of such things the result would likely be worse than the statu quo anyway.

      With that being said, you are correct. No compromise is possible. This debate has laid bare a fissure in our society for all to see. It seems to me the country has not been so divided since the Nixon days.

    • avatarBen says:

      If the State of Colorado is requiring insurance or other fees as a means of preventing or “chilling” the exercise of a core constitutional right, the requirement is unconstitutional.

      • avatarrosignol says:

        Well, yes, but state legislatures tend to not take such things seriously until a Judge or AG explains it to them.

        Sometimes they have to limit the explanation to words of two syllables or less for it to sink in.

  8. avatarChris says:

    “We are taking a measured approach that respects the rights of whites and Europeans when we restrict access to bathrooms, schools, busses and drinking fountains.”

    That wasn’t acceptable under Jim Crow laws and some people shouldn’t be exempt from an infringement on their rights here either.

  9. avatarJoshinGA says:

    • Banning concealed weapons on college campuses.

    This one irks me the most. Statistically I am “safe” on campus. But I sometimes am on campus “afterhours” doing science stuff in the lab. The walk home in the dark would feel a lot better armed with more than a sharpened pencil and a pocket knife with a blade no longer than 2′.

    • avatarST says:

      That’s a combination of cultural and political factors. The political is due to Colorado State University’s forced compliance with state law permitting CCW: that institute of “Higher Learning” did everything short of armed revolt to rebel against the state law mandating recognition of CCW. I don’t doubt for a minute the University’s Board is itching for a chance to re-ban firearms on campus via state law.

      The cultural reasons are why even in “Red States” CCW on college campuses is sometimes specifically listed as a felony offense. There’s a cultural perception that college students are just high schoolers with access to booze and weed, so naturally permitting anything more dangerous then a ball point pen is a bad idea. Of course, such a cultural perception is factually erroneous considering the large number of veteran students and adults taking classes at such campuses. Alas we don’t base policy in this country on facts anymore, and college gun bans help the image of a “safe campus”. Who needs CCW, when your daughter can walk about at 12 AM thanks to the gun free zone signs, university call boxes , and the 1 police officer on duty.

      • avatarAnon in CT says:

        Actually that cultural image is pretty accurate in a lot of cases. Which still should not stop members of the faculty and administration, as we ll as graduate students and visitors to campus who are CCW holders from carrying legally.

        Call me an “anti’ if you wish, but dorms, booze and firearms don’t mix.

        • avatarJoshinGA says:

          Dorms and firearms dont mix. Yes, I agree. But not many 21 year old CCW permit holders are living in dorms.

        • avatarJustAJ says:

          “Call me an “anti’ if you wish, but dorms, booze and firearms don’t mix.”

          You’re 2/3 right IMO. Booze and firearms don’t mix. That being said, as long as the 4 rules are followed, there is nothing that would make a dorm any less safe than any other environment. My 13 year old is around my guns all the time. He is no more or less safe because of their mere presence.

    • avatarDDay says:

      Good luck to a woman fighting off a rapist, armed or not without a firearm. Gun bans, “gun free” zones, and the like affect women and elderly the most. Most violent criminals are men, especially rapist and there very few women who could defend themselves with just their hands.

  10. avataranonymous says:

    And these are the same people who think that having to show an I.D. to vote is an egregious violation of rights.

  11. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Stop killing our children? I agree, don’t let old ladies kill our kids. We got it handled, don’t worry there Madam Currie, Randy

  12. avatarCarl says:

    ad nauseam is one of my favorite phrases.

    I spelled it correctly.

  13. avatarBillll says:

    Allowing CCW in schools would create a hostile working environment for suicidal madmen and some of the faculty. Can’t have that.

  14. avatarShaky Dave says:

    I propose an in-depth experiment to settle the debate. We take a state – say, Massachusetts or New Jersey, but I’m open to suggestion, and make the entire state a gun-free zone. Some of us will have to move, but it’s for the greater good. Maybe New York, since the groundwork is there. Then we disarm the entire population, including the police. Then we go back in ten years and rescue any survivors.

  15. avatarSlab Rankle says:

    I realize it’s easier to say “civil disobedience” than to do it, but instead of running, why don’t the millions of at risk gun owners in these states get together and say:

    “If you want our guns come and try to take them. We WILL open fire on you.”

    The police chief of Chicago has already threatened to shoot gun owners. Do we need a Declaration of War from the Senate to understand that we’re under attack here?

    I saw a quote recently, maybe on this very site:

    “I don’t need my gun any more than Rosa Parks needed to sit in the front of the bus.”

    Everything being done now on this issue is explicitly unconstitutional. We have no moral obligation to comply. The last two elections showed us that the electoral process is broken. What does that leave for us to do? Here’s a hint:

    …whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…

  16. avatarJMS says:

    Crimes committed by students legally carrying concealed on campus: zero. Best ban it just in case, though, and make 100% sure all of our students are totally defenseless! Thanks. Keep up the good work, geniuses.

  17. avatarDerek says:

    “Strengthening laws to prevent those with domestic violence convictions or protection orders against them from buying firearms;”

    That’s nice. I’m sure that will never get abused in a nasty break up/divorce. Vindictive wife/gf threatens gun owning husband/bf with potential SWAT raid after she files for a restraining order or claims he smacked her around.

  18. avatarJustAJ says:

    “Strengthening laws to prevent those with domestic violence convictions or protection orders against them from buying firearms”

    Oh, the old make it MORE illegal plan, heh? That’ll sure work. I mean, it’s not enough that the law says if you were convicted of DV or have an active restraining order against you, you can’t have a gun. We have to make it stronger. The law should say “if you were convicted of DV or have an active restraining order against you, you REALLY, REALLY can’t have a gun.” There, I fixed it, problem solved!!

  19. avatarLarryG says:

    I’ve had a concealed firearm permit in colorado for 20 years, and I haven’t committed a crime yet. But they want to make me a criminal if I go visit my daughter a CU Boulder without leaving my firearm at home. I am totally baffled that here in the mid-west I feel like my rights are being assaulted as if I lived in NY and CA. How did we let this happen? I write to these people in the state and federal capital but it has no effect because they don’t represent the people, they do what makes them feel good. And if I let this situation get me a little depressed, then they’ll try to use that as excuse to take away my guns without a judge.

  20. avatarCRAIG BRADLEY says:

    THEORY vs. PRACTICE (Reality)

    Bare in mind that any new state statutory requirements for gunowner/buyers of “AR” ‘s to first purchase firearm liability insurance would still remain personally liable for their actions, legal or illegal. Even if a shooting is judged “justified” by the local district attorney and Grand Jury, civil lawsuits by the “victim’s” relatives remains a real possiblity. In addition, any lawful discharge of a firearm that causes collateral damage to either private property or persons is subject to civil lawsuits. Finally, insurance companies do not pay claims to gunowners or others who commit a criminal act with or without a gun. Thus, criminals can never be “insured”.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.