Colorado Democrats Pass Bold New Gun Control Measures In House Committee

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

After a full day Tuesday of listening to testimony from gun control advocates and opponents, Colorado Democrats passed two bold new bills aimed at curbing gun violence in a state that has the dubious distinction of being the home to two of the bloodiest mass shootings in American history -- Columbine and Aurora.

First, the House Judiciary Committee passed House Bill 1229, on a 7 to 4 party line vote, which requires universal background checks on all private gun sales in Colorado.

Then, late Tuesday night, the committee passed a bill that bans the sale of high capacity gun magazines that hold more than 15 rounds or more than five shotgun shells. A person who already owns a high-capacity magazine fitting the description would be able to continue to own the magazine but would have to maintain continuous possession of it. Late Tuesday, HP-1224 was amended to increase the amount of rounds in a magazine to 15, instad of 10, and was also passed on a party line vote of 7 to 4. Both bills now head to the House floor for another vote.

Rep. Rhonda Fields (D-Aurora) was a sponsor on both pieces of legislation and was not pleased with the amendment which added an additional five rounds to the maximum capacity of a gun magazine. "Many of those people are critically injured for life because of their wounds," The Denver Post reports that Field said. "These high-capacity magazines allow a gun to fire large amounts of bullets to kill people as fast as possible."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/ban-on-high-capacity-maga_n_2670463.html

[Crepuscular]

1. Hmmm

The background check regulation is a good one, a Federal requirement that all transfers go through a licensed FFL holder and a NICS would be even better, as would a Federal Firearms Owners License requiring a rigorous background check and mental health screening.

The magazine "ban"? Meaningless fluff designed for publicity that will do nothing to decrease the death toll if some nut job goes off his rocker.

What's the meaningful difference between two taped together 15 round magazines and one 30 round magazine? The second or two that it takes to turn over the 15 rounder and the fact that the 30 rounder is more likely to jam. Other than that, not much.

[Light House]

2. +100000000000000000000

[riqster]

11. Taping together magazines? Bad idea.

And in any case, remember when Gifford's assailant was taken down? IIRC, it was during a magazine change. The more of those changes, the more chances to stop a killer.

[NickB79]

49. It's pretty common with rifle magazines

But they do sell magazine couplers like this that are much better than duct tape: http://www.cabelas.com/15-magazine-coupler.shtml

[riqster]

51. Risky, though.

I tried it, against advice, and exactly what I was warned of happened: the bottom (or top of the alternate magazine bumped into a rock, bending the metal: when I flipped it around, the magazine would not feed, and I "died" on that exercise.

But it really doesn't make a mag change that much quicker anyway. And the more mag changes, the more oportunities to stop the shooter. That is why smaller mags matter for civilian arms. Again, ask Rep Giffords.

[frylock]

20. hogwash..

an old lady disarmed loughner in between reloads. changing mags under duress is just a little more difficult than it is at the range.

[pasto76]

40. and of course, you speak from experience

naturally. Would love to connect with another war veteran. drop me a line.

Or I can tell you about the 5 soldiers in my platoon who, the first couple times we were engaged, couldnt even open their magazine pouches cause they were so scared.

[frylock]

41. thank you. no military experience on my end..

though I come from a military family. I do own guns and have some experience in firing military style carbines. just too many yahoos around here that get all their opinions from watching movies or TV. put them through an exercise where they had to change mags with someone bearing down on them, and they most likely would be fumbling their mags as well. it's a ridiculous argument to be sure. there were some people arguing that you could speed load a revolver in a matter of a few seconds, so regulating large cap mags was a waste of time. simply preposterous!

[LanternWaste]

3. A long journey to take indeed, but these small steps are getting us on our way...

A long journey to take indeed, but these small steps are getting us on our way...

[onehandle]

5. Yep. Gun nuts claim these actions are meaningless. But they know...

...that these actions are just the crowbar being inserted into the door frame.

To prove that legislation can be passed.

The door will be ripped open... and control will be established.

[hack89]

12. Just like that 1994 AWB crowbar ... oh wait.

if history is any guide you are going to get one shot at the prize.

[derby378]

18. And just like that wave in FEAR AND LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS...

...it's gonna break and roll back. The "unstoppable force" is running into an immovable object.

[Deep13]

13. On our way to what?

I'm all for reasonable regulation, but if you are for disarming civilians generally, then we are not on the same side.

[frylock]

22. where did you get that this legislation is "disarming civilians?"

[Deep13]

42. I wasn't talking to you. nt

[frylock]

44. well i'm talking to you on this public forum..

so you know what you can do with your hyperbolic bullshit, right?

[LanternWaste]

52. If people are going to make

"but if you are for disarming civilians generally, then we are not on the same side..."

If people are going to make idiotic presumptions based on little more than their own sacred-cows, then we too are not on the same side.

[etherealtruth]

39. Even the smallest steps forward

... are steps forward!

[meadowlark5]

4. Once again I heard a collective conservative head explosion

The first collective head explosion I heard was when gay marriage, or maybe it's called civil unions here in Colo, passed it's first hurdles on it's way for certain legalization.

Now this After this last election all branches of the state government are dem majority The repugs in this state, I'm sure, are angry and extra paranoid about these radical liberals making radical liberal laws.

[Samjm]

9. I wouldn't get too cocky

Despite the make-up of the legislature, we're a VERY purple state. If we push too hard to the left, too fast, there will be a big backlash. Some of those big rural districts who're starting to tilt ever so slightly blue will swing back to very red in a heartbeat.

[meadowlark5]

31. Oh, I fully expect that has already started happening

I'm sure the repubs will NOT stand for this any more than the two years left till the midterms.

The gun laws they could roll back, possibly, if the repubs get a majority in one branches in 2014. But civil unions/marriage might be harder to repeal. I'm glad the dems are pushing through somethings now while they can. If they are popular or approved laws, taking them away after the fact isn't as easy as blocking them on the front end.

[Dr_Scholl]

48. I doubt this will pass anyway.

This is Colorado we're talking about, not New York.

[Ashgrey77]

6. Expect to lose Colorado in the next election.

[onehandle]

7. That's pre-12/14 thinking.

The tipping point has been reached.

[Ashgrey77]

8. Do you live in Colorado? I do.

[backscatter712]

16. I live in Colorado too.

And I think a tipping point has been reached - most people want reasonable restrictions.

What's so fascist about magazine caps and background checks? The only people opposed won't vote Democratic under any circumstances anyways.

[Samjm]

17. I happen to agree with the restrictions

But there are MANY people in the rural areas that might otherwise be open to Dem principles who might disagree.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have passed. I'm just saying be careful about assuming this isn't going to have an impact on the next election.

[Ashgrey77]

19. I'm opposed and I vote Democratic.

And I'm not the only one.

[derby378]

26. A magazine cap is a back-door "assault weapons" ban

As for the background checks, an expanded system will only work if we have the wisdom to do it right. That means the gatekeepers have to be policed as much as the prospective buyers. Last time a gatekeeper fell asleep at the switch, Virginia Tech happened.

[Hard Assets]

53. I do, and I think you are wrong.

Colorado will remain a blue state.

We are in the middle of removing all of our remaining idiotic Republicans and sending them out to the pasture.

[Samjm]

15. If you're in CO,

Have you left the liberal bubbles of Denver and Boulder and visited Greeley lately? Or CO Springs? Have you gone east to the very rural towns out there?

Just because everyone around you agrees with you does not mean anything close to a tipping point has been reached.

[Hard Assets]

54. Do you need machine guns or automatic guns in the rural area?

No.

You need a shotgun

[derby378]

23. We should let Republicans play the "9/11 card"

I think Democrats are better than that.

[frylock]

24. oh noes!!1

[joshcryer]

32. Colorado Dems are doing what their constituents want.

Expect Colorado to go even bluer next election because they will be rewarded for doing what their constituents want as opposed to pandering to the minority.

[otohara]

46. Guns Over People

Last edited Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)

You seem eager turn CO red again because your gun takes precedence over the well being of all Colorado citizens.

[Deep13]

10. Does "bold" mean sensible?

Seems like it. 15 was the 1980s standard for a 9mm auto-pistol. Now they go up to 19 and still fit in the handle. This also gets rid of the ones that stick out of the gun like the Glock 32-rounders. And it really cuts down on AR15 and AK magazines. It also insures that someone who really needs a pistol for defense won't run out of bullets.

I don't know about the non-alienation provision. It's probably okay, but making them worthless on the market may be a takings clause violation.

The most important part is the universal background check.

[Ashgrey77]

14. They are overreaching.

The main people that wanted these laws passed are from Denver specifically. By ignoring the rural areas and other counties opinions they just guaranteed a republican majority in 2014. Not to mention Magpul is going to be pushed out of state (900 jobs). Colorado is purple not blue. Mayors against illegal Guns pumped millions into this and hired a lobbyist out of Boulder to push this bullshit. Coloradoans just love people from New York telling them how to live.

[otohara]

21. Boulder Had ZERO Murders Last Year

So hiring a lobbyist out of Boulder sits very well with me.
What's your beef with Boulder and Denver?
Columbine isn't in Denver, Aurora isn't Denver.

I'm glad Mayors Against Illegal Guns is pumping millions into doing something/anything.
Perhaps the NRA is more your style.

Colorado is made up of people from all over the states, especially the NE. As a native, most of my acquaintances came from other states. We don't generally dislike New Yorkers either.

Sounds like any gun changes will be bullshit as far as your concerned.

My neighbor is a constant reminder of the evil of guns - her ex took their only child and shot him in the head last year.

[Ashgrey77]

27. And Boulder has the same laws that city I live in has.

We had 0 murders last year, what's your point. Violence and murder are rare in Colorado and the things they are banning have jackshit to do with the crime that does happen. I have no beef with Boulder of Denver other than a certain group of politicians have a agenda against the gun owners in the rest of the state. I have lived in Denver and Boulder, and I love both of those cities. I just have a problem with politicians that have a personal agenda against people in other parts of the state owning certain things someone 300 miles away doesn't like.

[otohara]

35. 300 Miles Away & Fewer People

Boulder's population is almost 100,000. No murders for one year in a city that size is a big deal - it's rare.

You rural folks really don't give a shit about your city dwelling neighbors much. Otherwise, you'd be more concerned about our
safety and well being, but no, it's all about you and your gun.

That certain group of politician's you mention represent more people - that's how things work. The bigger the population, the more representation. We chose those people to represent us, not you. Yet you want the few to have more power over the majority.

Why would you care about Aurora, you don't live there.

[Ashgrey77]

36. There's a reason Boulder has very few homicides.

And it doesn't have shit to do with gun laws.

[otohara]

37. What's The Reason?

do tell.

[Ashgrey77]

38. High income, low poverty college town.

[frylock]

25. yeh, because a 15 rd limit is overreaching..

get real.

[Ashgrey77]

29. Maybe not to you, but to other people it is.

You just want them banned anyways. You don't seem to care what anyone who doesn't agree with you thinks anyhow, so why would I care about your ill informed opinion . Cheers

[frylock]

30. you don't know fuckall about me..

i'm a gun owner, not a gun humper. they want to limit it to 10 at the federal level. you take what you can get, and 15 rds is perfectly acceptable.

[Hard Assets]

55. No they have not guaranteed a damn thing

Your logic is poor. The local Republicans are getting tired of getting their ass handed to them in terms of gun control. The state wants to be a little more reasonable and better gun control.

The rural folks do NOT need a machine gun or assault rifles to keep the local wildlife away. They need a noise deterrent and it's very easy to make one without having to use a killing machine.

After Aurora, I think the entire state is ready to embrace a little more sanity in gun control. That's why this year, more Republicans were thrown out of Colorado House and Senate to ensure a stronger Democratic majority.

[Crepuscular]

33. Except that it doesn't

Except that it doesn't get rid of 32 rounders or any other high cap mags, it merely stops the retail sale of them within Colorado. Anybody that owns one can keep it and use it. Going to be almost impossible to be able to tell who owned one, pre-ban, as there are no serial numbers and no registration and they can be readily purchased through the mail and over the internet. Almost impossible to enforce and not something that is going to deter a criminal. If someone is committing a gun crime, possession of an illegal magazine is probably pretty far down the list of things to worry about.

[Deep13]

43. The funny thing is...

...I can't tell which side you are on based on that statement. Are you saying it is pointless to try? Or are you saying that what we really need is confiscation?

[Crepuscular]

47. As I've said before

As I've said before, there are reasonable, sensible measures that we can take that could actually reduce the amount of gun violence and crime in this country but much of what is being proposed falls outside of that category and into the category of political theater employing symbolism over substance.

I've owned guns for most of my life, have a fairly large collection and I'm thoroughly familiar with their functionality and capabilities. From the standpoint of the potential of doing violence, there is little to no difference between what can be accomplished with a 15 round magazine and with a 30 round magazine. It's a trivial distinction, especially since the vast majority of gun crime in this country only involves 1 or 2 individuals in a given incident. We are wasting a tremendous amount of time and political capital focusing on the margins, instead of using that energy more efficiently to go after the root causes of gun violence. So I guess to answer your question, anything less than confiscation (which I don't think will ever happen) is pointless to try, because it won't have a tangible impact on crime.

[rachel1]

34. K&R If only Congress would follow suit and repeal the 2nd Amendment altogether

[Llewlladdwr]

45. They can't.

While an amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment can be proposed by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress it would require ratification by 3/4 of the state legislatures before taking effect.

Good luck with that...

[NickB79]

50. This is a "bold" gun control measure?

If anyone had proposed these kinds of laws here on DU a month or two ago and called them "bold action to combat gun violence", they would have been called NRA shills for watering down the popular gun control message of all-out bans on numerous types of firearms and ammo.

Talk about lowering expectations.