Previous Post
Next Post

Cameron L. forwards links and summaries of the first four civilian disarmament bills introduced in the Colorado legislature. Cameron indicates that, according to his sources, at least four more bills are in the works.

HB13-1224 Concerning Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

It prohibits the sale, transfer or possession of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds or 5 shotgun shells. It grandfathers in “large capacity” magazines already in the possession on or before July 1, 2013. Any person who sells, transfers or possesses magazines after July 1, 2013 will be committing a Class 2 misdemeanor. Any “large capacity” magazine manufactured in Colorado after the effective date . . .

must have a serial number and production date on it. Anyone who manufactures a “large capacity” magazine in violation commits a class 2 misdemeanor. The bill exempts law enforcement after the effective date, but does NOT exempt armed private security. Magpul is located in Erie, CO just north of Denver and will be directly affected by this bill. It will be interesting to see if their lobbyists can move the needle on this, or whether they will relocate to a friendlier jurisdiction.

HB13-1226 Concerning eliminating the authority of a concealed handgun permit holder to possess a concealed handgun on the campus of an institution of higher education

The bill adds an exception to statute prohibiting a concealed carry permit holder from possessing a firearm in any building or structure on a public institution of higher education, any stadium or arena used by a public institution of higher education (includes Mile High Stadium/Pepsi Center for example), or any outdoor events on the campus.  The bill exempts campus security officers.  The language of the bill does not include a LEO exemption, but that language could already be included in the relevant section of statute.

HB13-1228 Concerning requiring the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to recoup the cost of performing an instant criminal background check prior to the transfer of a firearm

Under current law, the cost of performing CBI instant checks is paid for using general fund dollars. This bill would shift that cost to the individuals obtaining the background check.

HB13-1229  Concerning criminal background checks performed pursuant to the transfer of a firearm

This bill would require private sellers of firearms to perform a CBI instant background check at a licensed firearm dealer before transferring a firearm.  Any individual that violates the provision commits a Class 1 Misdemeanor.  The bill also requires the clerk of the court to report specified court orders relating to mental health or substance abuse to the CBI.  The bill establishes a judicial process for individuals to appeal for relief of federal firearm prohibitions, requiring the court to find that the individual is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety or granting relief is not in the public interest.

As of right now, none of these bills has attracted a Republican co-sponsor. The Democrat majorities in the Legislature have indicated that there will be at least four more bills introduced in the future, presumably including the Civil Liability provisions that have already received a large amount of public comment (and ridicule).



Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Having democratic majorities assures at least some of this will become law, with or without the ridicule

  2. Why isn’t anyone who supports the 2A offering legislation opposite of this carp? Not just in CO but everywhere. I know some States it would be an exercise in futility but at least it shows they are willing to offer counter proposals and have some legislative cajones.

    • We are trying here in California, but it is nuts!!!
      I feel like a David going against a Goliath!

      • Just remember David stayed light and mobile, used the simplest tools… oh and aim for the head.

      • Since you are a former member of the IDF we expect you to personally defeat the KKKalifornia Goliath.

    • We have, they were all shot down in committee in the last few weeks.
      It included things like liability on the part of an entity that disarms patrons and does not adequately provide for their protection, and other reasonable, common sense proposals.

    • In Washington state, there’s an attempt to gut the state’s Castle Doctrine and a few more minor things lurking around the edges, but no all-out assault against the Second Amendment.

      Not only that, but those things are being countered by at least two bills that, if they pass, would be a big step forward for gun owners. One bill would explicitly authorize permanent employees of all schools in the state to carry at work.

      House Bill 1371 reasserts the Castle Doctrine and SYG as fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens, protected by the state constitution and the US Constitution; asserts that firearms manufactured within the state (not that there are any) fall solely under state law, not federal; and asserts that the 9th Amendment guarantees that rights not enumerated in the Constitution fundamentally belong to the people.

      Who knows if either of these will make it through, but it’s heartening to know that at least some states are pushing back against all this anti-gun insanity.

    • > Why isn’t anyone who supports the 2A offering legislation
      > opposite of this carp?

      Because pro-2A politicians are incapible of the creative thinking necessary to do so.

      “Liability on the part of an entity that disarms patrons” is a stupid idea, especially from a party that’s been espousing “tort reform” for decades.

      As an example of the type of counter-proposals that should be made, consider this one:

      The background check requirement should be countered with something like expanding the background check to include voters; i.e., screening people at the polling place to make sure they are eligible to vote. After all, if a background check isn’t an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, it surely is not an infringement on the right to vote. And if most people support something, then the majority should have its way.

      A vast majority of Americans — nearly 4/5 — support voter I.D. laws [ Pew Research Center. November 22012 ]. An earlier poll by the Washington Post shows 2/3 of African-Americans and 2/3 of Hispanics support voter I.D. laws.

      Of course, liberals — who vehemently oppose voter I.D. laws — try to dismiss the results by claiming that the supporters are ignorant and/or racist [ Huffington Post. July 18, 2012 ]

      Public Opinion on Voter ID Laws: Strong Support, Shaky Foundation

      But we also find that support for the laws depends on how they are presented to public. When ID laws are framed using arguments in support of the laws, or an argument stating that fraud is rare, the public tends to favor them at high levels. Yet, when voter ID laws are framed as taking away voting rights, the public is significantly less likely to favor them.

      Results from our survey show that Americans are not very familiar with voter ID laws, and are divided on how much voting fraud exists in typical elections. Even more surprising we found that many Americans who say they are required by their state to show photo ID when voting actually live in states with no such requirement.

      These results suggest that when these laws are discussed in terms of the denial of legitimate rights, Democrats, but not Republicans, are more likely to question their support for the laws. It also appears that arguments in favor of voter ID laws do not change opinions about them, nor do ‘factual’ claims about the extent of voter fraud.

      Misinformation about photo ID requirements, relatively low beliefs that voter fraud is common, and decreases in Democratic support for voter ID laws when they are framed as taking away legitimate voting rights all suggest support for voter ID laws rests on shaky political grounds even with high public favorability ratings.

      Ultimately, public opinions on the issue are clearly shaped by those framing the debate, and there is no doubt that I and my fellow political science colleagues will keep a sharp eye on the effects of voter ID laws in the coming elections.

      The point of proposing an expansion of the Colorado background check to screen inelligible voters at polling places is not to expand the Colorado background check to screen intelligible voters at polling places. It is to change the dynamic of the debate.

      Becuase we are going to lose if we don’t.

      If we wanted to get even more creative, we could propose making the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun, and the requirements to own a gun the same as to vote. Imagine the fun and hilarity that would ensue in the legislative chambers.

      Somebody a lot smarter than me — which is most of the population — once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. Unfortunately, that describes pro-gun politicians and pro-gun lobbyists perfectly.

        • most of the people who voted these wiseguys in beleive that there is only one election every 4 years.

        • The same Colorado that elected the very people who are proposing these laws? That Colorado? U have more faith in your fellow voters than I do.

      • > See the last election. Worse economy ever,
        > no plan for the future, absolute misery in
        > the country and he won anyway.

        With unemployment as high and chronic as it was, what did the Republicans when they ran a candidate who never produced anything, evades paying taxes, and admitted that he liked to fire people?

    • > These people are shooting themselves in the foot.
      > Just wait ’till 2014 and see….

      As incompetent as the Colorado Republican Party is, I’m afraid not.

    • See the last election. Worse economy ever, no plan for the future, absolute misery in the country and he won anyway. And the Senate slipped deeper into enemy territory.
      It’s probably too late to hope for much. Should the house go back to Nancy we can all hug and kiss it all goodbye.

      • “Should” the House go back to the Democrats? Try “when”. And try Hilary in the Oval Office.

    • Yeah I was going to try and get USAFA for my next assignment. Still better than if I get sent to CA or MA but that’s not saying much. Dang it and I was so excited for trying to get there too.

  3. The charging a fee to run a background check doesn’t disturb me. The rest of course does, but then again I am in CA so we have universal back ground checks, 10 day wait, background checks, AWB, 10 round limit, etc etc etc…

  4. If the bill requires an instant background check before you can exercise your Second Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and CHARGES you for performing that background check, how is this NOT a poll tax violation of your civil rights!

    • Because Scalia said that regulation of the business of manufacturing, buying, and selling firearms is permissible under the 2A, just as is the regulation of commercial speech. It is not the right to keep andbear, it is simply the commercial transaction of buying and selling that is involved.

      • It is not the right to keep andbear, it is simply the commercial transaction of buying and selling that is involved.

        Yes, because using that BS the scumbag anti-gun judges allow them to ban all the guns they want while claiming “But you still have the right to keep and bear arms, it’s not OUR fault that they legislated the manufacturers out of business…..”

      • So do we have the right to manufacture guns and avoid the buying and selling part? Nope, not without permission and a license to do it.

        • Actually, yes. You just can’t transfer the firearm to anyone else.

          There are more than a few people running around out there with AR lowers that are workshop-finished from 80% complete forgings.

  5. Can someone tell me how in the HELL they’re going to enforce a ban on the sale/transfer of so-called “high-capacity” magazines? If I sell one to a friend, how are they going to know? And we all know those criminals obey the law, don’t we?

    This is effing madness.

    • They won’t now. However, when the new pmag comes out in a few years, and you use it in self defense, they have you because they weren’t made until after the ban.

    • The law abiding will be trapped by this. Or in other words you won’t be law abiding if you don’t turn it over to them.
      See how that works? Kinda sucks don’t it?

  6. I can’t wait for election season. Wait until everyone of these congresscritters find themselves unemployed. There wont be another anti-gun vote for years. Politicians really are stupid. They must believe CNN’s polls saying the majority of American’s support gun control. They sure better hope the majority of American’s show up at the voting booth, because hell or high water I’m going to be there 😉

    • The Dems announced their gun banning plans in their 2012 Democratic Party Platform. They were still elected. They are simply doing what they promised. And you think the 2013 gun grab is going to be the magical pivot point in 2014 or 2016? Dream on.

  7. The pro-gun community needs to boycott and hold-off vacationing in all anti-gun states to include CO, CA, NY, MA, etc.


      You do realize that “Colorado” means “color red”?

      The state was named for the Colorado River, which early Spanish explorers named the Río Colorado for the red colored (Spanish: colorado) silt the river carried from the mountains.

      Considering that the original Red Dawn (“Wolverines!”) took place in Colorado, maybe it’s time for some film maker to produce Colorado Dawn, about the current fight against Communism. OK, so it’s a crappy joke; try to do better.

    • > why does anyone vote for democrats?

      Because there are issues other than guns, and people who care about those other issues.

      • Yeah, like the economy. Whatever. Liberals and their fantasies of a Utopian society. Welcome to Obamanation.

      • I used to feel that way & voted that way. Once the dems take away guns though they have nothing to offer to me, Randy

        • Randy: Which part of the 2012 Democratic Party Platform regarding firearms did you not understand?

          Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

      • I support the Dems on gay marriage and equal pay for women. And the Bible thumpers that dominate the GOP piss me off. But then again I voted all Republican in Maryland just because the Dems run wild here. And for Gary Johnson. We need a viable third party like yesterday.

        • How exactly is “equal pay for women” still an issue. Just like hungry children in America and Romney in your bedroom. Just doesn’t exist.

        • equal pay for women.

          So you think women should be paid more because of their gender instead of being paid according to their skills, education, years of experience, etc like a man’s pay is determined?

          I have multiple degrees in Economics and I can tell you that every single study claiming that women are “underpaid” is utter bullshit and if you tried submitting a paper with such poor methodology in grad school, you’d be kicked out.

        • I think a woman should be paid the same exact thing a man would be paid in the same position, with the same duties. Seems like a no brainer.

          If I wash dishes for $5.50 an hour (true story years ago), a chick should be able to earn the same amount doing the same crap I do. Same with a black dude, an albino, or even a godforsaken Steelers or Cowboys fan.

          I should also be able to carry a gun for self defense in Maryland, but you have to be rich or politically connected for that. Until the 4th District smacks our elitist governor down.


        • Buell: where exactly are men being paid more than women to wash dishes? Talk about a non issue. Dude, you are in need of deprogramming.

        • I think a woman should be paid the same exact thing a man would be paid in the same position, with the same duties. Seems like a no brainer.

          Two men with the same job title aren’t paid the same amount. Why? Because your salary is determined by your education, your work history, how long you’ve been at the company, etc. It’s just a simple fact that many women tend to take off a significant amount of time from working to have kids – why should they then come back and get paid the same as if they had spent those years working instead of at home with kids?

          That’s the problem, you’re not thinking about the factors involved with determining pay, you’re just going with a feel-good slogan. This type of lack of critical thinking skills is exactly why we get anti-gun laws passed to punish law abiding citizens when a criminal does something bad with a gun.

        • Buell, equal pay does not take into consideration equal work history. Gay marriage is less than 2% non issue wanting acceptence (which can only come from each individual human heart) vs tolerance. The joining of the sexes will always be superior for child creation and raising. The evil ACLU will sue the church to remove tax exempt status. Christianity is non issue in todays age of porn and crap on tv and internet (why make them weaker in our sick world).
          This country will ALWAYS be a two party system that can only be changed from within.

  8. Cheyenne, WY is a mere 90 minute drive from Denver. Assuming the Feds don’t step in with a magazine ban of their own, all criminals have to do is take a short drive to get whatever they feel they need, no way Wyoming takes part in this madness. Way to go idiots, your big law is easily bypassed with a morning road trip. A real life saver!

    Better yet, there are a couple fireworks stands just across the border in WY to sell to Coloradans who cant purchase said novelties in their own state. How about a fireworks AND high capacity magazine stand?

  9. Don’t get complacent. We don’t need any of this in Colorado. I’m concerned about a NY style, middle of the night passage on this. The people here are like people everywhere else. They start to believe the lies absent sane and steady opposition. Let the state know what they can expect in 2014 if they continue to waste time, money and effort on something that does not need to be changed.

    They would treat citizens like this, yet would pay out of the state coffers to extend education to illegals. This insanity must be stopped.

    Damn them.

  10. More politicians who need to be tried for treason. Any particular reason we the people don’t enforce the rules on our politicians anymore?

  11. People have been moving from Ca to Co for years. They brought their politics with them and this is the result.

  12. This is just more proof, as if we needed any that we can’t just run to gun friendly states and stick our heads in the sand. Colorado was a gun friendly state. This blue disease is spreading and it starts in California. If we can’t stop it here it won’t be stopped. As California goes, so goes the rest of the country.

    Either we cut the cancwer out here or be ready to live in English style gun laws.

  13. Colorado keeps voting Democrat, now they have to live with it. Are you happy now, you helped get this A– hole elected.

  14. Every gun owner that spends money in Colorado thru big game hunting or any other kind of vacationing has the ability to boycott states that want to force the dem’s new regulations.
    Won’t it be nice to vacation in Colorado after Colorado becomes more like Chicago.

Comments are closed.