BREAKING: Colorado Magazine Ban Passes Senate

Magpul PMags courtesy meangreenfirearms.net

There’s sad news out of Colorado. The magazine capacity limit bill has been passed by both the house and senate, meaning the only thing between it becoming law is another vote in the house (where it already passed once) and the Governor’s signature (which he has said he will affix should the legislation pass). There was an intense effort by gun rights supporters to keep the bill from passing, but the urge to “do something” to “stop gun violence” in the Democrat controlled state proved too powerful. TheDenverChannel.com has more . . .

Lawmakers who voted no during previous votes were concerned that the bill would not reduce violence and will hurt a Colorado manufacturer of magazines. Monday, it passed by a vote of 18-17.

– House Bill 1228 would revive fee payments for gun purchasers who need background checks. Having been previously approved by the House, it now goes to Governor John Hickenlooper’s desk for a signature.

– House Bill 1229 would add a background-check requirement for many guns sold in private transactions. The bill has been approved by the state House. It now goes to Governor Hickenlooper. Hickenlooper is expected to sign the bill.

– Senate Bill 195 would require people seeking concealed carry permits to take gun training courses in person. People can currently take online courses. That bill now goes to the state House.

– Senate Bill 197 would require courts to order anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order or convicted of domestic violence to relinquish their guns within 24 hours. A judge could extend that to 72 hours. That bill also goes to the state House.

The only two pieces of legislation pulled from consideration were a ban on concealed carry on college campuses and a bill making “assault weapons” owners and “sellers” liable for their product’s use.

The magazine capacity limitation legislation passed by a single vote.

[UPDATE:] The original title of this article indicated that the mag capacity limit was headed directly to the Governor for signature, and was based on the crappy reporting of the original source. Based on additional sources, it looks like some amendments were made to the bill, meaning that it still needs to pass another house vote. However, due to the previous passage, the chances for it being stopped from getting to the Governor’s desk are slim to none.

comments

  1. avatar Ebbs says:

    The bill was amended in the Senate so it actually has to go back to the House for another vote before it gets to Hickenlooper. We’re not totally out of luck just yet.

    1. avatar TeutonicTenifer says:

      Wasn’t it amended to uninclude pump shotguns?

      1. avatar Ebbs says:

        Only unincluded up to Shotgun magazines 28 inches in length. So Yes and No.

        1. avatar Tommy Knocker says:

          I was watching the live feed when the sponsor said she actually worked with David Kopel on the shotty tubular mag mod. She quoted him as saying that it would make a bad bill just a little less bad. I thought that it was a creative approach in getting away from the round count limit. Especially for shotguns which can take all sorts of lengths.

  2. avatar JoshinGA says:

    What a terrible day for gun rights. The Kalifornication of Colorado is nearing completion. Weed – Legalized. Guns – Strictly controlled. State bankrupting itself – On its way.

    Oh, and time for Magpul to put up or shut up.

    1. avatar Nate says:

      Ain’t nothing wrong with legalizing weed, sadly drug legalization and legal guns should go hand in hand. But they don’t, because Americans are idiots.

      1. avatar MMGG says:

        The fact that people don’t see that these should go together, and are both rooted in the concepts of individual liberty and personal responsibility, is why we are screwed. I am afraid the Republicans will put up a prohibitionist bible thumping challenger to Hickenlooper, ensuring his reelection.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Republicans really need to pull their heads out of their assess and get rid of the preachers parading as politicians.

        2. avatar rosignol says:

          +∞

      2. avatar JoshinGA says:

        I dont have a problem with legalizing drugs. Actually, I think it would solve many of the crime problems we as a country currently suffer from. But, the people that tend to want to legalize drugs are, as you said, not typically in it because its a freedom of choice and decrease in government regulation and more because they want to smoke their weed legally.

        1. avatar Sammy says:

          Drugs will never be legalized nationally. States can say they are legal but the feds don’t, and it’s their call. There is just too much money involved. From the criminal sale revenue to the prison industrial complex to the leeway taken by cops in the pursuit of the product that trample our rights and get our dogs shot. In a sane world account would be taken of the (lack of) success of prohibitions through out our history. Drug laws, and most vice laws are designed to produce criminals. What is the sense of a law that makes over 1/3 maybe closer to 1/2 half of the population outlaws? Pot WAS legal up until the beginning of this century. A time of some of our greatest development. Morality cannot be enFORCED. Such laws give organized crime a strangle hold on our society, and the money to corrupt our courts, banks and governments, tax free btw. But, if drugs are legalized what will the people who’s jobs it is to enforce these restrictions do for a living? Drugs have been a tool of political and social engineering for many decades. The worst part of the fact that drugs are illegal is that the price is inflated because of the penalties of being arrested for “distribution” and prosecuted, unless your from south o the boarder. Drugs would be only a small fraction of their present cost if legalized which would drastically reduce the necessity of users to revert to crime to pay for their habits. That would make us a lot safer, kids too, than any gun legislation ever considered.

      3. avatar tdiinva says:

        Yeah, weed, gay marriage and legalized prostitution are so much more important that the Second Amendment or economic freedom.

        I have come to conclusion that Libertarians belong in the Democratic Party. They share with the Democrats the same Rouseauian political philosophy championing the “purity” of the state of nature and the magical thinking that goes with it. They are more concerned about what goes on in the bedroom then they are about economic freedom. By moving to the Democratic Party, Libertarians maybe can have more positive influence on the more important issues of economic freedom. Life is more than drugs, sex and rock ‘n roll.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> Yeah, weed, gay marriage and legalized prostitution are so much more important that the Second Amendment or economic freedom.

          This can be debated ad nauseam, but that’s beside the point. The point is that if someone supports 2A, but also wants to ban gay marriages, you know that this person is not concerned about freedom in general, but only about his personal gun collection.

          And yes, you should be more concerned about what goes in the bedroom (or rather not goes – like cops barging in and dragging people out to stand accused of something they did in the privacy of their home; see Lawrence v. Texas), then about “economic freedom” (i.e. high taxes). Taxes are a passing thing, but when the state tramples on your privacy rights to the point of sticking its nose into the bedrooms of citizens, it’s beyond acceptable.

          Life is more than drugs, sex and rock-n-roll. It’s also more than guns.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          How is not recognizing gay marriage intruding into someone’s bedroom. Is opposition to gay marriage the same thing as attempting to regulate one’s bedroom activities?

          Your citation of Lawrence does not make your argument. It contradicts your argument. It says you have a right to do certain things that the government doesn’t approve of. This in no way requires the state to endorse your activities.

          On Gay marriage Libertarians have become the useful idiots to the left. It has alway been an objective of the left to destroy marriage and the family. They want to engineer a society of atomized, controlable indivduals. We already have experience with a segment of society that meets both Libertarian and Progressive goals on marriage. It’s called the ghetto where marriage and family have all but disappeared. Instead of utopia you get the social anarchy that has turned America’s inner cities into third world-like places.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          Marriage is far more than “endorsement” of the state. It marks an actual difference in rights and obligations, as far as the state is concerned, from taxes to visitation rights and property disputes. To not recognize that gay pairs can have the same arrangement is not even “separate but equal”, but it’s outright discrimination.

          The moment you speak of “destroying marriage and the family”, you show your true colors. Other people marrying whomever they want is not in any meaningful sense destroying your marriage and your family, unless you’re arguing that your marriage needs some form of endorsement from the state (by denying it to others that are somehow different). You are a statist just the same, you just want the tyranny of the state to be used to force your morality onto others; to make them to conform to what you see as right for them and society as a whole, for the sake of greater good. Your sole difference with “libtards” is on what you believe that to be.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          You can duplicate every aspect of marriage in a contract. Survivor rights, property rights, custody rights, medical power of attorney, the whole nine yards. There is no legal impediment to the signing of such contracts. The only problem is that adjudicating these contracts falls under tort law and the adjuration of competing claims is subject to a potential more involvede legal procedure than state marriages.

          You confuse “taxes” with economic freedom. Economic freedom is about property rights. Without economic freedom other so-called freedoms are meaningless and subject to the caprice of the authorities.

          I can only conclude that while you find gun rights to be important they are less important to you than social issues. Here is the problem. When you are faced with a set of preferences which may have competing and contradictory objectives there may be no feasible solution. It’s called [Kenneth] Arrow’s impossibility theorem.

          See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

        5. avatar int19h says:

          I’m pretty sure that you can’t duplicate the tax consequences of entering marriage in a contract.

          I consider gun rights to be a social issue, same as drug legalization and gay marriage. I consider the latter to be the most important of the three because of its immediate and ongoing discriminatory nature, so that’s what I prioritize when they are in conflict, but I consider all of them important (and a number of others – abortion rights, for example). The problem is that neither most Dem nor most Rep politicians cover all of that, or even enough to make me comfortable supporting them. But Dems still cover a significantly larger part of that list than Reps, even if it’s nowhere near enough.

          If I could pick a third party, the one that is very close to what I would consider a good balance is the Modern Whig Party. Unfortunately, third parties don’t really matter in the present American political system.

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          There are no tax advantages to being married. There is tax penalty although smaller than it was prior to the Bush tax cuts. That is one the big myths about marriage. Two of any sex living together will pay lower taxes than a married couple with the same income.

          The Second Amendment is not a social right provision of the Constitution. Each individual right in the Bill of Rights addresses something that the Crown did to infringe on these rights. To consider gun rights to be in the same class as gay marriage, legalized drugs and abortion reduces the right to bear arms to social convention. Social conventions can change, fundamental rights cannot. If I understand you correct that you vote for Democrats. That reveals that you don’t rank the right to bear arms as highly as other rights because you are willing to vote someone who will uphold the others and take away the one.

        7. avatar int19h says:

          The Constitution enumerates certain rights (most certainly not all of them), but it does not define them or categorize them, and it does not set priorities. The right to arms is a basic right anywhere in the world, regardless of whether the constitution of one particular country lists it or not. But so is the freedom of one’s body (which covers drugs and abortion), and the right to equality before law (which covers same-sex marriage).

          If I have to vote between two parties which both support some rights and freedoms while taking others away, I’m pretty much forced to rank those rights and freedoms in some order of priority. And yes, in that case, I would rather lose the right to own arms than losing the right to control my own body, for example. But you have to make the same choice as well, and judging by how you propagandize for people to vote for Republicans, you have made that choice – so please don’t preach to me about “small government” or claim some kind of moral superiority based on your support for the same. You would only have a moral right to do so if you abstained from voting, or voted for a third party that is actually for small government. Neither of the two major parties is that, and Republicans trample on just as many freedoms as Democrats do.

        8. avatar tdiinva says:

          Well said.

        9. avatar William says:

          Libertarians: anarchists with trust funds.

        10. avatar Moonshine says:

          I prefer the small “l” brand of libertarianism: Leave me the fvck alone. And while you’re at it, leave you the fvck alone, too.

        11. avatar tdiinva says:

          William:

          I have met Milton Friedman’s grandson Josh. Your definition of a Libertarian in a nutshell!

      4. avatar William says:

        Agreed, agreed and agreed!

      5. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

        Lived in Colorado for 4 years curitosy of Uncle Sam… well my family did as I spent 3 of those in either Iraq or Afghanistan..

        Was never so glad to leave. What I find so ironic, is they outlawed Crispy Cream donuts in our city (because they were unhealthy, yet let Dunkin Donuts and every burger joint stay open). At the same time the entire state outlawed cigarette smoking in public, because someone downwind at 100 yards may be affected by second hand smoke.

        So unless they changed that law….. Pot is OK, but cigarettes are not. Colorado is a place where common sense has left the building….

        State is so messed up. Magpul executives must have strong family ties and really like skiing to put up with that.

        MAGPUL, come to Tennessee where the majority of people have common sense, they welcome guns, and the state has no income tax.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          >> At the same time the entire state outlawed cigarette smoking in public, because someone downwind at 100 yards may be affected by second hand smoke. So unless they changed that law….. Pot is OK, but cigarettes are not. Colorado is a place where common sense has left the building….

          Have you actually read the Colorado pot amendment? It specifically says:

          “CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS
          SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY
          OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.”

          So it’s still illegal to smoke anything in public in Colorado, be it tobacco or weed. And a good thing, too, because second smoke is a real health issue; besides, the smell (of both tobacco and weed) is disgusting.

      6. avatar Bob says:

        Talk about idiots..drugs and guns should NEVER go together, unless it is to shoot the drug user…what a moron…..

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Legalizing drugs doesn’t mean that you have to (or even should be allowed to) use them while operating firearms, or anything else that is dangerous when misused. No more so than legal alcohol means that you can get drunk and then go shooting.

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      > What a terrible day..
      > Weed – Legalized

      Funny how many proponents of gun ownership who talk about “freedom” are against legalizing drugs and in favor of the war on some drugs.

      In many ways, their chickens have come home to roost.

      1. avatar DannyUSA says:

        Not true, I am for gun rights, and I am for cannabis legalization.

        1. avatar Bob in Boston says:

          Same here. I’m for following the constitution, which gives the Feds zero authority to ban smoking things. Anyone who wants guns legal but weed illegal is a hypocrit, and is just as bad as people who want weed legal but guns illegal. You can’t pick and choose which parts of the constitution you think you should follow or you’re no better then a lib!

        2. avatar rosignol says:

          Yup.

          I don’t care for the stuff, but I’d rather be surrounded by potheads and protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments, than have pot underground and the 4th and 5th A’s as de facto dead letters.

    3. avatar Jake says:

      Nobody EVER had a health concern about cannabis! It was banned to protect a PAPER monopoly held by the Hearst family. That is government intruding in the market to prevent society-wide benefits which could have been generated by the market to protect one corrupt sociopath.

    4. avatar Austin says:

      Couldn’t agree more, ashamed to say I’ve lived here as long as I have after all this. Assuming this bullshit actually makes law, I’ll be moving back home to Montana. Hopefully the common sense there will remain alive for another few years…

  3. avatar Mike Taylor says:

    Hey Colorado…remember the 18 that voted for this in all upcoming election cycles.

    1. avatar Larry2 says:

      +1000

    2. avatar ch3cooh says:

      More importantly, remember the two D’s that crossed the aisle to do the right thing. Cheri Jahn and Lois Tochtrop, they bucked their party and the DC/Bloomberg coalition to vote no on HB1224.

    3. avatar Adam says:

      I will. Only two dems went against their party and voted no. All republicans voted no.

      1. avatar pat says:

        Only a moron would vote democrat in THIS day and age. People should not have voted libtard in the first place. It will take a LONG time to fix what these leftists are doing.

        1. avatar din says:

          I see your lips moving, but all I hear is sh!t coming out.

        2. avatar pat says:

          Thats because your a loser who voted for your god, Barry Obummer.
          The numbers are quite unarguable. ALL the anti-gunners are democrat.
          Suck it.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          Only a moron would vote Republican in this day and age. People shouldn’t have voted one in the first place, but they did, and it is already taking a long time to fix the mess that that fascist did in his two terms.

          (turnaround is fair game, right?)

        4. avatar pat says:

          What in Gods name are you talking about int19h? So your saying the Republicans are trying to take our guns?
          What a libtard. Go to your god Barry.

        5. avatar int19h says:

          No, I’m saying that Republicans are trying to take other, not any less important freedoms. Which you don’t care about, because you don’t actually care about freedoms. Only about guns.

        6. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Not true. Many if not most of TTAG’s readers are libertarians or, as I prefer to call them, true conservatives.

        7. avatar int19h says:

          Robert, I’m perfectly fine with libertarians, even if I am not one (we can agree to disagree on economics, but discuss it politely). But this particular guy is not a libertarian in any sense. Look at his other comment on this story, the one that starts with “Only a homosexual like you …”.

        8. avatar Robert Farago says:

          Missed that. Deleted the flame. Please send a heads-up to guntruth@me.com if you see comments of that nature again. Thanks.

        9. avatar pat says:

          What do you have against homosexuals, bible bangers, and Republicans int19h? The subject was that ALL anti-gunners voted democrat, and you start bringing up other topics.
          I am pretty good, huh.

  4. avatar Blaxsun says:

    And now the REAL PMAG shortage begins…

    1. avatar Mamba says:

      Speaking of, my “Boulder Airlift” mag order has partial-shipped. The limit was 5 on the 5.56 mags and 10 on the .308 mags; the latter are back-ordered.

  5. avatar TeutonicTenifer says:

    As a NJ resident, I feel for my Colorado brothers.

    1. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      As a New Yorker I feel for my Colorado and New Jersey brothers. We’re got it pretty bad here, but intent to fight hard in 2014. 10,000 turning out at the State Capitol is a good start.

      1. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

        “You can all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.”
        – Davy Crockett.

  6. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    COMMIERADO has joined forces with the other no good COMMIE states.

  7. avatar anonymous says:

    This was posted on Armslist. I don’t know who the author is or the group sponsoring it.

    For Sale: Organized Civil Disobedience; July 02, 2013
    Listed On: Monday, March 11, 2013
    Listed In: Magazines
    Location: Denver, Denver, Colorado – Map

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    On July 2, 2013, over 500 Colorado citizens will engage in an act of mass civil disobedience to demonstrate the foolish, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional nature of the HB 13-1224 which will have gone into effect on the day before.

    These Colorado citizens will gather in a public park in Aurora, Colorado. Each of these citizens will bring a single unloaded regular capacity magazine of the type that has been in common use in Colorado and nation wide since the 1980s, and which each of them owned and possessed prior to the effective date of the statute. The United States Supreme Court has made CLEAR that law abiding citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that are in common use. There are millions of such magazines in Colorado, and they have been lawfully owned and used by Colorado citizens for defense, sport, target shooting, competition, and other lawful use for decades. Yet this property will have been transformed overnight into a form of contraband.

    At exactly 12:00 noon, these citizens will begin to pass their magazines to each other, one to the other, again and again, in contravention of Colorado’s new prohibition against transfer of existing regular capacity magazines.

    The number of magazines will not change.

    The nature of the people will not change, nor will their non-violent nature.

    The fact these people are your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow citizens will not change.

    The “lethality” of the crowd will not change.

    The danger “on the streets” will not change.

    The number of magazines in circulation will not change.

    The fact that the magazines have not been utilized to project violence or do any evil will not change.

    At any given moment, each person will be holding one magazine that existed on the day the law came into effect, just as they did when they arrived.

    But during the course of this organized civil disobedience, the crowd will be committing over 30,000 misdemeanors per minute. They will do so in direct and defiant challenge of a blatantly unconstitutional law, and will be prepared for arrest. In the event of arrests, each person will refuse to plea bargain and will insist on trial by jury. In conjunction, the gun rights organizations listed below will be assisting these individuals’ legal defense, and bringing a constitutional challenge of the law both facially and as applied.

    This protest will occur contemporaneously with similar protests in other states where politicians have determined to run roughshod over Constitutional rights in an attempt to make a showing of “doing something” about violence, but who lack the courage and political will to take a close look at the mental health system and the systemic failures that resulted from phasing out institutional care while greatly increasing the dispensing of dangerous psychotropic drugs.

  8. avatar Silver says:

    Further proof that writing your reps, calling, protesting, etc, are all ultimately worthless, as I’ve been saying. Politicians today are tyrants and care nothing for what their subjects want. There’s only one form of resistance politicians will listen to and Americans, for some reason, have decided not to go that far yet. Or ever, if my suspicions are right.

    So, two things. Firstly, any Colorado subject who complies with this is a coward and slave. Keep your mags, buy more out of state, transfer them amongst people you trust.

    Second, to everyone here, stop the feelgood BS of “calling and writing to let your reps know your view.” It’s as empty and self-soothing as the progressive fascists mag ban itself. They have an agenda and sure as hel don’t care what you have to say about it. You want to call/write your reps and say something? Write them and remind them in no uncertain words why the 2A exists, who the guns it protects are intended to be used against, and whether they really want to keep poking the hornet’s nest.

    1. avatar Jim Barrett says:

      “Write them and remind them in no uncertain words why the 2A exists, who the guns it protects are intended to be used against, and whether they really want to keep poking the hornet’s nest”

      I’m going to chalk this up to one of those comments we expect from armchair commandos. I’m fairly certain you have not done what you suggest others do as I think they limit your Internet access when you are in jail for threatening the life of an elected official.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        I did no such thing. I simply encourage people to remind their reps the meaning behind a Constitutional amendment. If you take that to mean threatening murder, I think that says more about your mindset, as I encouraged no such thing.

    2. avatar Ropingdown says:

      They care about what 51% of their voters want, count on it. The problem with our representative model of democracy is this, in my opinion: A simple agrarian nation formed a government with relatively few powers as of, say, 1810. The Bill of Rights hadn’t been applied to the states. The budget was tiny. There was no federal police force. Issues were few. Today we have an enormous number of issues being voted on by, yep, elected representatives. Once they put together enough hot-button issues to garner 51%, they can do whatever they want with issues of interest only to a segment of the 49%. We need to implement a system of referenda, perhaps with a requirement of 60% of votes cast to pass. We need it badly. Only issues which conflict with the Constitution, as amended, would be off the table.

      1. avatar Bob in Boston says:

        I like your idea but I’d take it a step further. I’d say things need 75% vote to pass – we don’t need more laws we need fewer, and it should be *really* hard to pass any legislation. If something is really important, then it should be easy to get 75% of the people to vote for it. If you can’t get 75% of people to vote for it, then we can probably live without it.

        1. avatar Silver says:

          Good ideas, both.

    3. avatar Michael B. says:

      No fan of Marx, but to paraphrase him:

      False hope is the opium of the people.

  9. avatar MarkT says:

    Watched 3 hours of the debate on Friday night. At one point, Lundberg (R) looked over at his democrat “colleagues” and said something to the effect of “Enjoy the power while you have it, because it won’t last long.” Or something like that. He also said he would work to repeal it at the first possible chance. He and other republicans challenged their opponents to come up and provide the evidence to support the magazine capacity ban. Nobody had the stones to come up and publicly try to defend it. The republicans also tried to get an amendment that would limit LEO to 15 rounds as well, because giving them the full 30 creates 2 classes of people. LEO’s are more important than the public-at-large. That failed too. I really wish one of the good guys would’ve called the dems out and said something like, “So if you vote no on this amendment, then you are supporting an idea that we have 2 classes of people, the have’s and the have-not’s. That the safety and lives of those in law enforcement/government are worth more than the life of your constituents. Don’t hide behind the wording of the amendment with a simple “no” vote. You owe it to you constituents, those that elected you into this office, to clearly state your position. You work for them. You answer to them. Tell them in plain english what your vote means, and tell them now. I give you the floor.” That’s what I’d say, and I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t make too many friends. BTW, in the 3 hours of mag limit debate, I don’t recall hearing more than a few words from the gun-controllers. What really sucks is that I live on the western slope of CO where it’s VERY red. Can we just split the state at the Continental Divide? We’d still get some nice high-country, skiing, etc. All the gungrabbers stay east, we’ve got this part now. Maybe we can cozy up with UT. Now THEY understand guns. Oh, and they aren’t too far of a drive to pick up more 30-rounders.

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      Well said.

      Also, don’t waste your time on the split idea. Work to elect pro-2A candidates instead, and support the court challenges that WILL be coming.

      1. avatar MarkT says:

        “don’t waste your time on the split idea” Yeah, but I can dream, can’t I? My state Rep and Senator are both pro-2A. However, both our US Senators are dems and I’m not sure where they stand. Been so busy following the fight at home, I haven’t been closely following the things are brewing on the federal level.

    2. avatar rod says:

      here we are like you a lower population per mile area (read Nice) and driven by the HIgh population areasthat most would like to move from . seems like a common issue.
      upper mich /detroit, Il / chicago, upper NY /NY city .

      vote those traitors out, vote one issue, remember the supporters.
      Visited Co. once, we 2 laned it from Co. springs west and So to Durango a great road trip. hope to repeat

    3. avatar Mamba says:

      The split idea is a nice dream; we have family over in Fruita. Unfortunately, the wife and I live in Boulder County which over the years has devolved into Politburo Place.

  10. avatar ChrisJ says:

    So how long until the SAF files a suit that these magazines are protected under the common use test?

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      That’s the real question.

    2. avatar MikeH says:

      For those of us who are not familiar with Colorado law, please explain what you mean.

      1. avatar ChrisJ says:

        It doesn’t have anything to do with Colorado law, it’s from the Heller case. They can’t ban arms which are in common use at the time.

        Given AR-15s are so incredibly popular as are their standard capacity magazines, this ban would at face value seem to run counter to the Heller ruling.

        1. avatar MikeH says:

          Ahhh… I see now. Thanks.

        2. avatar E says:

          I am with you, but given the numbers…it could be very easily argued that AR-15’s are not all that common. Estimates range anywhere between 4 – 10 million AR’s in civillain hands. Additionally, estimates claim there are roughly 300 million firearms distributed throughout the country. Even if we take the high end estimate, some simple math shows that to be right around 3% of all firearms out there are AR’s. I don’t know about you, but generally in most cases, I find 3% to be pretty damn insignificant. If you don’t think these bans have a chance of sticking, you are fooling yourselves. This is precisely what will be used for justification for all of these laws, and what will be argued in front of SCOTUS, if we get that far. You watch.

        3. avatar ChrisH says:

          E, all good points, and I agree that’s how they’ll likely try to come at it. Instead we’ll point out that ARs make up 20-25% of current firearm sales, which is quite significant.

        4. avatar MikeH says:

          Also, AR-15’s are only one type of firearm that takes a “high-capacity” magazine. There are numerous rifles and handguns that use magazines with over 15 round capacities as their standard magazine.

    3. avatar Brandon says:

      Hickenlooper has to sign it first, then shortly after?

      1. avatar William says:

        In order for the position (that AR-15’s class of rifles) are not “common use” firearms (Heller), they should first have to provide proof of X number of other weapons that are in “common use” in greater numbers than AR-15s.

        Other than the Remington 870 in all its models and configurations, I doubt there ARE any.

    4. avatar rosignol says:

      I dunno, but making a donation wouldn’t hurt.

    5. avatar Sammy says:

      Can’t do anything until the Colorado Governor signs it into law.

  11. avatar IdahoMan says:

    Get a bunch of model airplane enthusiasts with a fleet of scale-model WWII bombers filled with PMAGS and para-drop them all over Colorado along with literature on the “Liberator” pistol.

    BANG.

    1. avatar William says:

      And the STEN, also. Making one of those is like Machine Shop 202. (Which if FAR above my shop competency level!)

  12. avatar gloomhound says:

    Elections mean things.

    Think about this next time you vote for a Dem or say that both parties are the same.

    1. avatar Ropingdown says:

      Absolutely. The disgruntled election day stay-at-homes should be ashamed.

      1. avatar IdahoMan says:

        Gloom, Roping,

        People like you are why we are in this mess. Unbelievable.

        1. avatar Sammy says:

          How are they responsible for this mess?

    2. avatar JAS says:

      It will be really hard to change elections in this country unless there is an amendment to the constitution to change the electoral college laws. The libis control the large population centers in all the big electoral college states and that is not about to change.

      Most all of the states forward their electoral votes in an unanimous block, and that is highly unfair to the other 49% of the country. The smaller less populated states get the shaft every time. Popular vote majority rule is for democracies, not republics.

    3. avatar int19h says:

      Both parties are not the same in a sense that they both want to ass-fuck your freedoms, but they want to do it in different ways. Depending on which ones of your freedoms are more important to you, you may prefer one way over the other, but I don’t think it’s anything to boast about either way.

  13. avatar Jim Barrett says:

    What needs to happen in Colorado is a repeat of what happened at the national level in the 1994 election. The Democrats suffered one of the worst defeats ever handed to the party that controlled both houses of Congress in part as punishment for the 1994 AWB bill. If Colorado voters make these clowns pay with their jobs for what they did, it will send a powerful message to gun control proponents everywhere. If not, then expect more of this crap and worse.

    1. avatar MarkT says:

      Agreed, but sadly we have a short memory. There could be a big republican swing in 2014 (and maybe ’16), but given the history and trending, we’ll be back in this situation again in 15-20 years at the most. Still, we’ve got to fight. If I’m going down, it’ll be swinging……. my empty 15-round “clip” on the end of a short string, ’cause that’s all they’re going to allow.

      1. avatar William says:

        I don’t think there’ll even BE a GOP within a few years. I see it fracturing into at least two new parties. Might no be a bad thing at all. All the backstabbing GOP collaborators will likely land in the same party. We vote for the other one.

        1. avatar MarkT says:

          Unless a lot of Dems jumped ship, they’d be the dominant party if the GOP split into 2 parties.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          GOP will split soon enough, but the way the split will go is, one part will basically move towards libertarianism, with conservative fiscal policies but liberal views on social issues (but still remaining hawkish on foreign policy). The other part will be where the Bible-thumping homophobes will end up. The latter will then diminish into irrelevance over the next decade or two.

        3. avatar pat says:

          Still talking about the homosexuality (nothing wrong if you swing that way), bible-thumpers (nothing wrong if your an atheist, well…actually…but why the hate on people who believe in God). Why talk about Republicans when ALL the anti-gunners vote libtard democrat? As an odvious self loathing democrat, why dont you smash your fellow party members into a pro gun liberty stance inctead of defending them and leaving the job to me and my tender mercies?

  14. avatar Lance says:

    Time to nail those fascist pigs with recall elections and if not next year let those scum feel your vengeance at the ballot box.

    1. avatar DutchinDC says:

      It ‘s already started. There is a recall petition out for Sen Morse from CO Springs, everyone there needs to sign it!

      1. avatar Sammy says:

        I have encouraged the use of the recall procedure. Or is that only applicable to Conservative elected officials?

  15. avatar WA_2A says:

    As if this news didn’t pissed me off enough…18-17?! You’ve GOT to be kidding!

    We were THAT close to saving the Constitution from a golden shower!

    1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      I’m too experienced with the legislative process to think this was really close.

      The Repubs were self-declared guaranteed votes against.

      Among the Dems, the 3 with the most pro-2A districts likely got together with the party leadership and sorted out who would vote against (to keep their seats) and who would risk voting in favor. They went into this knowing exactly how the vote was going to go.

      This isn’t a Dem or Repub thing. It’s how the 2-party system works when there’s a hot-button issue and the side that wants to pass legislation has a clear majority. Same dynamic, different issues depending on which party is in charge.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        Exactly how it happens.

      2. avatar Dave says:

        A couple of bills did fail though. Or were they meant to fail from the start?

        1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

          Generally speaking, the minority party threatens to throw down the “legislative apocalypse” card if the majority party doesn’t kill off some of the second-tier bills. When you’re the minority, you can threaten all-out nuclear war, or nothing.

  16. avatar Anmut says:

    Well at least the people of CO can smoke themselves into oblivion and not remember who or what happened by the time 2014 roles around…

    1. avatar JimInCO says:

      You’re an ass.
      Not all of us who voted to legalize pot are stoners.
      The dems will keep control of CO legislature until the idiot republicans figure out their meddling in our personal lives is a deal-breaker.
      The repubs will put up some asshole religious wingnuts, and they’ll lose. Like they always do.
      The parties listen to the money; religious “right” controls the repubs; guilty liberals (progressives, i suppose) control the dems.
      As always, it’s a choice of the lesser evil; unless, like me, you vote Libertarian, and throw your vote away…

      1. avatar Sammy says:

        You sound just like the grabbers, but on a different subject.

        1. avatar JimInCO says:

          How do I sound like a gun grabber?
          I don’t see it, please enlighten me.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      A person’s votes reveals their priorities. If you are voting Democratic because they are ok with gay marriage and legalized weed then you are telling me that those issues are more important to you than the Second Amendment or small government. That’s your choice but don’t pretend that you are a “molon lab” type of guy.

      Throughout history tyrants have used the tools of free sex and drug induced oblivion to control their populations — give them bread and circuses and the masses will give you a free hand.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Your attempt at making an analogy is ridiculous. The government is not giving anyone bread and circuses in this case – legalization of drugs and gay marriage is about allowing the people themselves to do what they want without intervention from the government. It’s the quintessential example of what “small government” is!

        Yes, I would consider gay marriage more important at this moment, because right now the opposition to it represents actual, ongoing discrimination against a group of people, quite similar in nature to the “separate but equal” arrangement of the Jim Crow era. This is an obvious, blatant injustice that is ongoing in front of our eyes right now, and it should be given priority treatment until it is dealt with.

        This does not preclude worrying about the more generic means of ensuring that there’s no injustice in the future. Many people here argue that 2A is to protect against government tyranny, and that’s fine. But when you argue about your right to protection against hypothetical tyranny against you, while ignoring the actual ongoing case of said tyranny against someone else, it’s just hypocritical.

        1. avatar pat says:

          FLAME DELETED

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Thanks for showcasing my point about Republicans so concisely.

      2. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        “molon lab” == “come and take my scientific equipment”?

        Did I get that right?

      3. avatar David says:

        Actually, the state Democrats are not at all “ok with legalized pot.” This was passed with a popular referendum, over the objections of the democratic state house, and the piece of shit democratic Governor, Hickenlooper. The political power of law enforcement and prosecutors is immense. There is a notable Libertarian streak in this state. Regardless of what the human garbage in the state house does, this is a pro-gun state, #14 nationally in per capita gun ownership. These laws only have the support of 35% of Coloradans, but they are taking orders from DC and NY.

      4. avatar pat says:

        Int19h, you need to smash your fellow libtard democrats who put us in this mess, rather than defending the indefensible (ALL anti-gunners vote democrat) and going on about less important topics (homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population and Christians are a far greater positive than negative to the country).

    3. avatar William says:

      Oblivion? Won’t they find you waiting when they get there?

  17. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… the only thing between it becoming law is another vote in the house (where it already passed once) and the Governor’s signature …”

    Well we could talk about Colorado County Sheriffs who have publicly stated they will not enforce such a ban.

    We could also consider “jury nullification”: juries’ are responsible for serving justice, not finding citizens “guilty” of bogus “laws” that harm no one.

    Of course these two solutions are spotty and definitely not a guarantee.

    I am looking forward to seeing the elected representatives bounced out of office in the next election! You would think that they would have learned from the 1993 ban.

    1. avatar William says:

      Oh, I think they learned. But they also learned you can come back again and again and again, because their patience is endless, compared to the average Joe or Jane.

      What I’m trying to say is this: they think they can make us give up. Time will tell if they are right or wrong.

      So many unused ropes, so many highway bridge abutments.

  18. avatar Pascal says:

    Condolences Colorado, but Connecticut will soon be on deck. Hope some of you can help us in the fight. See the http://www.ccdl.us/ if you can lend a hand.

  19. avatar LTC F says:

    Hopefully MAGPUL will take advantage of the skilled labor and freedom here in Texas, in fact there just happens to be plently of manufacturing facilities available in beautiful Leander, not far from Larue Tactical.

    1. avatar Hal says:

      Are you by any chance a LTC for TXMF, Sir?

  20. avatar Hal says:

    ATTENTION MAGPUL!

    We in Texas would be supremely honored by your presence with us. Please consider Leander, Texas where you would be located close to Larue Tactical with whome I believe you already have a good relationship.

    With you, STI and Larue we can begin to slowly break the cycle of good gun makers residing in anti-gun states.

    LMT
    Kimber
    Springfield

    We look forward to hopefully hosting your companies in time also. You will find that the tax incentives are great, and anything with the lone star stamp received huge support from Texas buyers. Please consider relocating.

    Remmington
    Colt

    No one wants you. Please stay right where you are: deeply embedded into the collective asses of anti-gun politicians in NY and CT.

    SIG, FN, Glock; you guys keep’on keeping it real in pro-gun states.

    1. avatar William says:

      Did I miss something? I was under the impression MagPul had already committed to Utah.

  21. avatar Tom says:

    I volunteer my dually truck to help Magpul move.

  22. avatar roscoe says:

    Re: Narrow Passage of Colorado Restrictions.

    I can already hear the MSM Nightly News lap dogs rejoicing !

  23. avatar JimInCO says:

    The pot legalization thing was a put-it-to-the-voters thing.
    NOT a “vote democrat to legalize” thing.
    So I voted YES on legalization, and voted for Libertarian candidates for CO senators & representatives.
    If the repubs could produce a candidate who did NOT think it was his business what occurs in private between consenting adults, I’d consider voting for that person.
    If the dems could produce a candidate who did NOT think it was his business to control all aspects of my life, I’d consider voting for that person.
    As it is, I vote AGAINST every incumbent, in favor of Libertarian candidates.
    How that makes me a gun-grabber or a libtard escapes me. Nor do I see how that means I value my 2A-guaranteed rights less than gay marriage or legal drugs.

    1. avatar William says:

      “If the repubs could produce a candidate who did NOT think it was his business what occurs in private between consenting adults, I’d consider voting for that person.”

      Sadly, Barry Goldwater is long gone.

    2. avatar jerry says:

      So can I have your mags? You soon will not be needing them

  24. avatar Dave says:

    Vote the nazis out.

  25. avatar jerry says:

    Surprised that there are those here that place pot smoking and gay marriage above the 2A,but everyone has their own priorities I guess.

    1. avatar pat says:

      Which is the death of our Republic.

  26. avatar Steve in Colorado says:

    The argument should be about LIBERTY. If the democrats want to EXPAND liberty for recreational drug use and same sex civil unions then they have no business LIMITING liberty for another distinct group of people. The benefit of both the use of recreational pot and same sex civil unions is for a minority segment of the Colorado population. If “progressive” democrats are truly interested in expansion of liberty for all, especially minority groups of any kind, then how can they limit liberty for another? What that amounts to is government mandated discrimination. When this occurs it actually moves our society backwards. I have written the governor and urged him to veto the bill based on the hypocrisy of this discriminatory contrast between these bills that are on his desk right now. I think everybody should do the same. Also, it is worth mentioning that HB 13-1224 is poorly crafted and will have far reaching consequences. If you have not already seen it, go to this link and read the legal review that Magpul hired a Denver based law firm to complete:

    http://www1.koaa.com/files/Magpul.veto.letter.pdf

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email