Colorado gun bills: Senate gives nod to magazine ammo limit after six hour debate

[Robb]

Source: Daily Camera

Coloradans who want to buy ammunition magazines could be limited to 15 rounds under a measure lawmakers in the state Senate gave initial approval to Friday night.

The measure now heads to a final floor vote on Monday — moving it a step closer to being signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper, who has indicated his support of the legislation.

House Bill 1224 passed through the House chamber by a 34-31 margin in February, and was originally sponsored by state Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora.

Read more: http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_22746922/colorado-gun-bills-limits-ammunition-magazines-be-debated?source=most_viewed

---

Excellent night for Colorado Democrats, who are showing the country what you do with a majority!

Last night's gun bills passed:

• Senate Bill 197 - Ban on guns for domestic abusers: Advances in Senate
• Senate Bill 195 - Bans online concealed carry certification: Advances in Senate
• House Bill 1229 - Universal background checks (including private sales): Advances in Senate
• House Bill 1228 - Requires gun buyers to pay their own background check fees: Advances in Senate
• House Bill 1224 - Limits on Magazine Size (15 rounds, adios Magpul): Advances in Senate

[Blandocyte]

1. Similarly, Guns & Ammo magazine will be limited to 15 pages.

Comedy gold, my friends.

But seriously, a gun guy posted a video showing how quickly he could shoot to empty a magazine that held more than 10 rounds, then used 2 mags with a mag change between to show he could fire as many shots as the larger capacity mag nearly as quickly, despite having to change mags. Altho he intended it to be a demo of the futility of stopping mass shootings via mag capacity limits, to me it demonstrated that he wouldn't be losing any significant time by having to change mags in the case of a mag capacity limitation. So what was his gripe, then? Just use another mag and learn to change it quickly. Besides, that would be tacti-cool!

[ChiTownChavista]

57. Civilians do not need guns.

Society is better off with complete confiscation like in Japan.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. K&R

[denverbill]

3. Well, we still have to wait to see what our 'Democratic' governor will do.

The one who recently had a private meeting with the head of the NRA.

[Robb]

4. "Hick? Good to talk to ya, it's Joe Biden. How ya doing?"

I'm not worried.

[joshcryer]

5. +1, it won't be a big deal.

[nikto]

6. This little baby will still be legal...

The Bersa Thunder Plus---A good firearm for a Liberal--Modest, but effective.


(15-shot magazine)

[link:http://www.bersa.com/bersa-firearms/thunder-plus.html|

[Peter cotton]

10. Within such a limitation, I prefer the .40 Glock 22.

(Also uses 15 shot magazines)

[Scuba]

13. Strong evidence that the Colorado magazine limits aren't stringent enough.

[Peter cotton]

15. How stringent should it be?

The strictest state law in the country (NY) allows 7 round magazines, which means you can have a fully-loaded Colt 1911:



What limit do you propose?

[Scuba]

16. Selfishly, seven, as I like my Gov't Model.

[The Magistrate]

28. Just Cannot Keep That Stash Of Gun Porn To Yourself, Fella, Can You?

That is exactly the sort of thing convinces people 'Team NRA' types are more than a little off kilter. If your obsession was, say, lacy ladies handkerchiefs, you would probably be a little more hesitant about hauling out your stash of photographs or the objects themselves to display to strangers, knowing you risked some ridicule over how obvious your non-standard obsessions were. But this would war with the desire to be public with it, with the difficulty many have in really comprehending that what is so important to them is faintly ridiculous, even a little repellent, to many many others. But when it is guns, you just whip it out, at the slightest hint of an opportunity for display....

[Peter cotton]

29. Aw, you didn't call me "Sir". I'm crushed.

"Gun porn"? What an absurd concept.



But when it is guns, you just whip it out, at the slightest hint of an opportunity for display....

[nikto]

39. Guitars, grass and guns---A great combo for Progressive-Liberals.

Along with miso soup, chicken wings, aragula, spare ribs, modern art, Jazz and Rock, and...
... Cutting the Military Industrial Complex by 50%,
while ending the drone attacks immediately, forever, starting Single-Payer HC, investing a trillion dollar$+
into US infrastucture, bringing back the Glass-Steagall limitation on Banks, regulating or in some cases outlawing Wall st derivitives, increasing tax on richest 1% of Americans by another 3% to 10% (range), stopping the Keystone pipeline, restricting corporate ownership of national aquifer-waters, ending the privatization of Public Schools in America, bringing down the co$t of college education, and putting new controls on fracking, nationwide.

At least for a start.

[nikto]

37. Ooh! Nice!

That looks like the Rail Gun, perhaps?

7-shot clip , must be a 45?

I know they make a 22LR with a 15-shot clip.

Very nice firearms. I hope they are exempted.
But we may have to accept a 10-shot mag limit.

But, short of the zombie apocalypse, I think I can live with it.

[Dr_Scholl]

7. Well, the Democratic majority was fun while it lasted.

And for what, a bunch of useless feel good measures?

How the hell is a 15 round magazine limit supposed to stop mass shootings? The most horrific mass shooting in U.S history was carried out with magazines holding 15 and fewer rounds (Virginia Tech- 32 dead, 17 wounded).

[nikto]

9. Yes, it looks like...

The Dems are going to spend much of their political capital on feelgood gun legislation,
and ignore The Banks, overbloated military budget, US infrastructure, privatization of US public schools,
erosion of citizen rights (other than with guns), Labor Unions' eroding power, Keystone Pipeline problems, Fracking,
threats to pensions, etc etc etc

The gun issue will give the Dems the excuse that they've done something.

But I'll bet little progress will be made on economic, and other Public issues, that affect most people.

Just keep your eye on the "money issues" and think: Cui bono?

[Robb]

12. Gun cuddlers haz sadz.

Team NRA worked so hard against this useless bill.

[Robb]

19. Tick tock.

[Lurks Often]

22. Not in Virgina, at least not this year n/t

[Bjorn Against]

14. Jared Loughner was stopped while changing his clip

That is one clear example of how a limit on magazine size can stop mass shootings. You can claim this will hurt Democrats all you want, but the fact is polls consistently show the majority of Americans want limits on magazine size. I believe it will be the NRA types who refuse to accept any reasonable gun control measures that will suffer in the next election.

[Robb]

21. These measures are also overwhelmingly popular in Colorado.

The Democratic Majority is going nowhere; indeed, they are representing their constituents well.

[Fat Bastard]

23. +1

instead of screwing the consitutents, the Democrats in Colorado represents all of us very well.

It's John Hickenlooper that has to go bye-bye. Time to primary him out.

Pro-gun and pro-fracking Governor does not fit for the state of Colorado.

[hack89]

34. The Va Tech shooter used standard mags

So such a law would not have prevented the worse school shooting in our history.

I support mag limits but I am under no illusion that it will make us significantly safer.

[Bjorn Against]

35. You are correct, that is why limiting magazine size is not nearly enough

There needs to be much more strict gun control laws all around, limiting magazine size is just a small step but lots more needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of gun nuts.

[hack89]

36. It is unlikely you will be able to get more

it is questionable that magazine size limits will be passed in more than a handful of states. It is certainly out of the question in Congress - there is not enough Democratic support in the Senate.

[primavera]

33. It's not just "feel good"

Part of the reason gun control measures face such an uphill climb is because gun advocates keep brainwashing everyone into believing that, despite the contradicting example of every other developed nation on the planet, the US is unique and no regulation can ever have the slightest impact here, so we'd better not even think about trying to do anything to reduce the 30,000 gun deaths each year or we'll be politically decimated. True, it's unlikely that this single piece of legislation will dramatically reduce gun deaths all by itself, although if it saves even one life, that's good enough for me. In the bigger picture, though, what it will accomplish is to demonstrate that the 230 million people in this country who are not gun owners can, in fact, stand up to the 70 million people who are and demand a safer country. Any law that moves us in the direction of that happy outcome serves a good purpose in my opinion.

[Peter cotton]

8. Interesting tidbit: The magazine limit doesn't take effect until July 1st.

It also grandfathers magazines that someone already owns, so Colorado gun owners can buy all the 30 and 100 round magazines they like until June 30th. I've already seen posts on other boards from Colorado residents saying that they've spent over a thousand dollars on magazines for guns they don't even own, just so they can use them at some point in the future...and Magpul has launched "Operation Boulder Airlift", in which they will sell up to 25 high-capacity magazines at dealer cost to each Colorado resident that orders them in time.

[Robb]

11. With respect, Magpul can fuck themselves.

And thanks for letting us know about their close out specials!

[Paladin]

18. Were You This Gleeful About Box Cutters After 9/11?

Because after the mass murders in Connecticut and Colorado and Arizona, that's what your crowing about hi-cap magazines sounds like.....

[Robb]

20. The Glib Sociopath paradigm.

[Paladin]

24. I Am Convinced That Tom Tomorrow Monitors DU Gun Threads.

And I hope he keeps monitoring them and mining them for material, for a long time to come.

[apocalypsehow]

42. +1000. I've seen arguments from our "pro gun progressives"* and "RKBA enthusiasts" down in the

Gungeon make arguments that eerily mirror that feller in those cartoon panels...



*( )

[Paladin]

47. Me too. Over and over.... (nt)

[xtraxritical]

25. This thread has been hijacked by gun nuts and should be deleted or locked or whatever DU does.

[Duckhunter935]

27. lets just censor

other people opinions, how liberal of you

[The Magistrate]

26. Good, Sir

"A journey of ten thousand leagues begins with one stride."

[L0oniX]

30. Woop ...now S&W and Glock get to sell replacement 15 round magazines. Nice!

More money for gun makers. I guess it's unavoidable.

[Peter cotton]

31. They alrady make 10 round magazines for those in states which have

such a restriction. Since a 15 round limit is something of an odd duck, I wouldn't anticipate a 15 round magazine for the Glock 17 anytime soon. Rather, the local market for larger caliber handguns that hold only 15 shots (or less) will dramatically increase.

[apocalypsehow]

32. Good first start. More sensible gun regulation is coming nationwide. Kick, Rec.

[hack89]

38. Everything up to an AWB has good chance

in a handful of states. Assault Weapons Bans appear beyond reach judging by what happened in Oregon, Minnesota and Colorado. Same applies to Congress - too many Senate Dems from pro-gun states up for reelection in 2014.

[apocalypsehow]

41. I'm just impressed you haven't put me on *ignore* yet: nearly every one of your Gungeon pals

have decided that the heat's too hot in the gun debate kitchen when 'ole apoc's around, and 32 of them - 32! - currently have me on ignore. The day Meta closed that number fell to 31 for some reason, but as of today it's right back up to 32.

*My* ignore list, OTOH, remains barren.

Now, I know I'm going to get the predictable reply, "they've decided it's a waste of time arguing with you; you offer nothing in the debate; blah, blah, blah," anything other than the plain truth, i.e., they simply can't handle debating a poster who runs circles around them consistently.

Fine: I really only post this reply to acknowledge that you are nearly alone among the Gungeoneers who has decided it's better to continue to fight for your viewpoint, rather than run for the hills.

[hack89]

43. I don't do ignore.

this is a discussion board. I am here to discuss things.

However, I do not share your high opinion of yourself. I don't mind you because the gun rights movement benefits from people like you.

[apocalypsehow]

45. "I do not share your high opinion of yourself" - Sure: you're still here, "debating," despite the

fact that the data and the evidence are rarely - if ever - on the "RKBA" side. So even though you are consistently wrong you are at least consistently up for a discussion. That was rather the point of my reply above.

" I don't mind you because the gun rights movement benefits from people like you."

Uh-huh. That's why 32 - 32! - of your pals from the Gungeon have put me on *ignore*, huh? They just can't stand all that help I've been giving 'em....



Fun stuff.

[hack89]

46. I doubt they are ignoring you because you are right

it has more to do with your rudeness, insults and immaturity.

Just a guess.

[apocalypsehow]

48. We've already been over this; but such a reply was predictable (and *predicted*) as the day is long:

"Now, I know I'm going to get the predictable reply, "they've decided it's a waste of time arguing with you; you offer nothing in the debate; blah, blah, blah," anything other than the plain truth, i.e., they simply can't handle debating a poster who runs circles around them consistently."

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014419873#post41

No, the fact of the matter is they simply cannot handle debate with a poster who constantly & consistently brings facts they cannot refute. We can go round & round on this silly circle, but the point of my first reply was not to argue about why they've run off to the proverbial hills using the *ignore* button, but that they have, while you have not. Indeed, I even inserted the disclaimer above in that very first reply.

But that you insist on taking off on that predictable tangent is why internet "discussion" so often fails: you want to argue that the reason your pals have fled and are hiding behind the *ignore* button is not because I could possibly be right in any way, shape or form, but because I'm wrong in some fashion. And you even manage to insert a personal attack into your absurd analysis:

"it has more to do with your rudeness, insults and immaturity"

So, what's starts out as an attempt to compliment you for sticking around to talk while the rest of your buddies have run off quickly devolves into an attempt on your part to defend them - and, hence, your dubious cause - by indulging in pedestrian personal attacks. You can't just accept the observation that they're gone and you're not and move on: it's gotta be another opportunity to snark and posture and, well, engage in "rudeness, insults, and immaturity."

Funny stuff.

The anonymous internet discussion board literally is the place of the never-ending push on open doors.

[hack89]

50. So you are winning because lots of people have you on ignore?

what if I have more people ignoring me? That means I am winning, correct?

[apocalypsehow]

51. Now the rhetorical question gambit. Good talking with yah. Tell your Gungeon pals I said

*



*(Those not yet PPR'd, of course. Which narrows the list considerably... )

[hack89]

53. I knew you would fold. nt

[apocalypsehow]

54. You know no such thing, as no one has "folded." I complimented you on your refusal (so far)

to put me on *ignore* like all of your Gungeon pals have, and you took the opportunity of that compliment to (1) launch personal attacks and (2) attempt to change the subject.

My reply above was merely indicating that that part of the conversation was, predictably, over, with your attempt to ask rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with my original reply.

Is there anything else you wish to discuss?

[hack89]

55. No - your entire point is that you are winning because so many have you on ignore.

I merely pointed out the flaw in that logic.

[apocalypsehow]

56. Nope - my "point" was that all of your Gungeon pals had run off, while you stuck around.

As there was no "flaw" in any "logic," ergo, it was impossible for you to have pointed it out.

Again: is there anything else you wish to discuss?

[hack89]

60. Yet all your pro-gun control pals have also run off

judging by all those that have me on ignore.

[apocalypsehow]

61. As 99.9% of DU is pro sensible gun legislation, FIVE THOUSAND DU'ers could have you on *ignore*

and it still wouldn't be percentage-wise equivalent to your pals who've fled the field: only a tiny minority of DU'ers peddle or hold the right-wing pro-NRA viewpoint on guns, after all. 32 makes up about the entire core of the Gungeon "regulars."

Sorry, no dice: false equivalences and phony analogies just don't cut it.


Edit: typo.

[hack89]

62. I like you - you are funny. nt

[apocalypsehow]

63. That's nice. Enjoy your stay at DU. n/t.

[hack89]

66. Considering I have been here three years longer than you

I can honestly say I do enjoy my time here.

[apocalypsehow]

67. That's nice. Enjoy your stay at DU. n/t.

[hack89]

68. You too. nt

[apocalypsehow]

70. Sure. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

69. Addendum: *Placeholder* reply for Bookmarked thread, re: future reference. n/t.

[hack89]

71. Feeling cocky? nt

[apocalypsehow]

72. Your ongoing "not concerned" concern is noted. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

58. I'm just impressed you haven't put me on *ignore* yet: nearly every one of your Gungeon pals

have decided that the heat's too hot in the gun debate kitchen when 'ole apoc's around, and 32 of them - 32! - currently have me on ignore. The day Meta closed that number fell to 31 for some reason, but as of today it's right back up to 32.

*My* ignore list, OTOH, remains barren.

Now, I know I'm going to get the predictable reply, "they've decided it's a waste of time arguing with you; you offer nothing in the debate; blah, blah, blah," anything other than the plain truth, i.e., they simply can't handle debating a poster who runs circles around them consistently.

Fine: I really only post this reply to acknowledge that you are nearly alone among the Gungeoneers who has decided it's better to continue to fight for your viewpoint, rather than run for the hills.





^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Exact replica of my first reply above, since it seems to have slipped from your memory. Need a link?

[Doctor_J]

40. The NRA lawyers will appeal to the corrupt SCOTUS

and probably get more life-saving legislation overturned. Not much good is going to happen in the US until we get rid of

1. All five of the right wing justices
2. A few thousand hate radio and fox "news" personalities.

[lonestarnot]

44. Something I guess.

[Auntie Bush]

49. Good for Colorado.

Now only 15 people can be shot without reloading.

[ZOB]

52. I Wish This Argument Had A Basis In Reality

A complete novice can replace an exhausted magazine with a full one in less than five seconds. I really don't believe that limiting the capacity of magazines will make anybody one whit safer.

[apocalypsehow]

59. LOL! You literally couldn't make this stuff up.

Welcome, errr, to DU. And enjoy that stay!

[ZOB]

64. I'm confused.

Is it my newbie status or my statement on how long it takes to switch magazines that prompted that comment? I can't help how many posts I've made and I stand by the fact that I don't see how size limits really make anybody safer.

[apocalypsehow]

65. That's nice. n/t.

[pasto76]

73. here is reality

18 years of army service. One 16 month deployment to the beginning of the Iraq war. That's my cred

If magazine size was. Irrelevant, my beloved army wouod issue us 12 round magazines. We would load them with 10 rounds and they would likely never jam. Because, as you say changing mags is basically instantaneous. Means changing mags has almost zero effect on how much firepower I can order my squad to put down range. Right? Wrong!!

Proof is in the pudding. We use the bigezt mags we can carry. We've also fielded a MACHINE GUN that fires the same round so we don't have to reload. More bullets loaded in magazines is very much how we calulate firepower.

You're JV level talking points are going to get you skewrd here

[ZOB]

74. My "Creds" Certainly Don't Measure Up To Yours

However, I do own a .22 rifle and a 9mm handgun. Having fired both on a semi-regular basis, I'm no pro.

That said, I can change the magazine in my 9mm in about 4 seconds. I simply cannot see how firing 15, or 10, or 7 rounds before having to change magazines makes anybody safer. In four seconds, I'll be able to fire an equal number of rounds again.