Landmark gun bills signed in Colorado

[Robb]

DENVER (AP) - Gov. John Hickenlooper signed bills Wednesday that place new restrictions on firearms and signaled a change for Democrats who traditionally shied away from gun control debate in Colorado - a state with a moderate streak and pioneer tradition of gun ownership and self-reliance.

Hickenlooper's signature of the bills comes exactly eight months after dozens of people were shot in a movie theater in suburban Denver, and on the same day as the executive director of the state's Corrections Department was shot and killed at his home.

Police were searching for the person who killed Tom Clements, and trying to figure out if the attack was related to his job.

The bills require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. Jane Dougherty, whose sister was killed in a deadly attack at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., was present for the bill signing.

Lawmakers and guests applauded as Hickenlooper signed the bills. The governor looked solemn.

Read More: http://ktar.com/23/1615063/Landmark-gun-bills-signed-in-Colo

[samsingh]

1. bravo

[redstatebluegirl]

2. Time to move to Colorado!

We almost ended up there but the job in Oklahoma was better. Love the brave legislators of Colorado!

[Kolesar]

29. The cycling state, the skiing state...

...could do a lot worse!!

[meadowlark5]

3. Along with that...

They are planning to teach sex education in the public schools. Previously, the law was a parent must *opt in* to the class and teaching of sex education. Now it will be your child will be taught sex education unless you *opt out*.

Not huge, but I'm sure the christian conservatives heads in this state are exploding again

[Robb]

4. And civil unions law gets signed tomorrow...

...behind the country on that, IMO, but it's a start.

[meadowlark5]

6. I know!

That's why I said conservative heads were exploding again.

Though this all worries me for the midterms. The conservatives and christians are going to mobilize and make sure a democratic majority in the state govt. never happens again. I know there was some gerrymandering done in the state, but to honest, I was surprised when the dems got control of the the state house and senate. I hope it's not too good to last.

[av8r1998]

12. sadly

The gun issue will most likely push the repubs over the top.
When are we going to get it folks?
We LOOOOOOOOSE when we talk about gun bans.
At the federal level, gun grabbers can do very little, but expect democratic governors and legislators to lose in the coming years in important swing states.... like Colorado.
And if Obama appoints a sc justice, be prepared to lose the senate as well... there will be a presumption by many that they are anti 2a.
This is no joke people. This gun issue will cost us dearly.

[hack89]

5. All good laws nt

[guardian]

8. The mag ban law is VERY poorly written.

62 Colorado sheriffs have publically have come out in opposition to the law and say they will not enforce it. The law was written by ignorant antigunner zealots that have no clue.

It is NOT going to save lives or prevent any crime.
It WILL cause businesses to leave the state worsening unemployment.
It WILL not be enforceable because it is so poorly worded.
It WILL make criminals of virtually every gun owner because it is so poorly worded.

It is a travesty.

[Trunk Monkey]

9. Nah, it will be repealed in 2014

After Hickenlooper loses the next election and Colorado takes a huge swing back to red.

The state house screwed the pooch on this one and alienated a whole bunch a Democratic gun owners

[guardian]

10. Recall efforts are already underway. I expect more to come.

Those not recalled will face a MUCH tougher race in 2014. These laws are NOT popular with the majority of the citizens.

[Trunk Monkey]

11. I expect Terry Maketa is going to take John Morse' job next year

Over all Maketa is not a bad Sheriff for a 'pug

[Robb]

14. They're very popular in Colorado.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[appal_jack]

27. Dem Pols need to quit the bait & switch.

I'm a registered Democrat and consistent Democratic voter because I believe in equal rights for women & men, for people of all colors & classes, for the GLBT & straight communities alike. I support unions, believe that jobs & economic progress can be entirely compatible with a protected environment, and want to see the social safety net, from earned benefits such as Medicare & Social Security all the way to unemployment and WIC benefits expanded, not shredded. I want civil rights & liberties expanded for people, while reigning-in the power & privilege of corporations.

I do not think that my beliefs are out of the mainstream.

It's a shame to see too many Democratic politicians squander this mandate provided by voters such as myself in a pointless battle over magazine capacities and other hot-button Second Amendment issues. Were I a Coloradan, I would be outraged. At the Federal level, I am outraged at the pointless expenditure of political capital led by Biden, Feinstein, Lautenberg, etc.

I agree with the vast majority of Democrats that violence needs to be addressed at the societal level. Our politicians could show real leadership toward this end by addressing poverty, ending the war on drugs, and reforming the criminal justice system to lock up the truly dangerous and leave everyone else alone. Pissing-on the Second Amendment instead is a second-rate, short-sighted, lazy alternative, taken by 'Democratic' politicians of the lowest caliber.

-app

[Kolesar]

28. Pissing-on the Second Amendment instead is a second-rate,

What a grand, comprehensive view of this current events issue!

[jmg257]

13. What part(s) are poorly written? nt

[guardian]

15. See links

[jmg257]

17. Clearly the Glock mag was "designed to be readily converted"...

Glock will even provide the extended plate.
It should be fine being banned.

That doesn't make all mags meet the same criteria...likely most weren't desgned that way.

[guardian]

18. No

"likely most weren't desgned that way."

Most magazine ARE designed that way. They have removable base plates so you can clean inside, and replace a worn out spring. Even if you had a magazine with a "non-removable base plate" all it would take is about 30 seconds with a hacksaw to remove the bottom and then just put your own bottom on. You could even use something as simple as a piece of plastic from a milk jug and some duct tape. Especially if one is a muderous psychopath that only needs to get one use out of the magazine for their murder spree. It is the law abiding gun owner that is concerned about durability and longevity.

Also having sloppy qualitative and subjective wording in a law is bad. Ask 10 different people was "readily" means and you'll get 10 different answers. Does "readily" mean it can be converted with no tools. Or maybe with a screw driver? Or maybe "readily" means it takes more than 21 minutes to convert. Or maybe it means a gunsmith with specialized tools can convert?

Writing the law to ban things that people can change/convert is stupid and sloppy wording. If they wanted to limit at 15 rounds then just say it is illegal to possess anything over 15 rounds.

If the purported intent is to "make society safer" this is a total fail. Magazines are just sheet metal and a spring. Pretty much anyone with a pair of tin snips can make one of pretty much any length/capacity and then go buy a spring from a hardware store. A junior high school student could make one in shop class.

Or you could print one on your 3D printer.

So all this law does is piss off gun owners, cost people a bunch of money, and totally fails at making anything or anyone safer.

Douchebags all for passing this.

[jmg257]

19. Yes..mags are designed to be cleaned, but not readily converted...

2 different things.

The Glock mag? Bad....obviously.

20 round mag with a 5 round blcok that can be removed simply by sliding off the floorplate? Bad.

An M1 carbine mag that needs a duck tape and sheet metal to extend? Not bad.

But point taking on wording...does happen too often.

[guardian]

20. So do you think

this law would have stopped or even changed what any of the mass murderers did? Columbine? Sandy Hook? Aurora?

[jmg257]

21. Not sure - could have changed their SOP re:hi-cap mags.

Pretty sure the use of 100 round mag in Aurora and the 30 rounders at SH would have been affected, if a law such as this had been in effect for a while. But I also agree these types of laws don't go far enough (with new regulations) towards being overly effective.

[spin]

24. As a sheriff in Colorado pointed out Wednesday night on CNN's Piers Morgan ...

there is no way to know when a magazine was purchased as they are not date stamped and since a gun owner is allowed to keep the magazines he owned prior to July 1st, the law is basically unenforceable.

Obviously the law could have been written to ban the ownership of any magazine that was readily convertible no matter when it was manufactured but that would have banned almost all magazines in the state which would have effectively banned the use of almost all semi-auto firearms. That law would have never passed.

Most common semi-auto pistols and rifles use magazines that will be banned on July 1. Therefore you will be able to buy a Glock pistol but not the magazine to use with it or a common conventional hunting rifle but not its magazine. So the law effectively will stop the sale many semi-auto firearms in Colorado as they would basically become single shot weapons.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. That, and Colorado is surrounded by states that have no magazine restrictions...

...and do not require a background check to buy magazines.

[jmg257]

30. Thanks. Similiar situation in NY with 7rounders. Supposedly Cuomo backing

off to allow NY standard 10rnders (loaded to 7), since many guns would/could be otherwise rendered useless.
Which of course was the original intent.

[spin]

31. I wonder that if I was an honest gun owner living in New York State and accidentally put ...

8 rounds in the magazine of my pistol what punishment I would receive if caught.

Why is it bad to have a pistol loaded with my only magazine that has eight rounds but OK to have a pistol loaded with a magazine that holds seven rounds and five backup magazines with seven rounds each.

I'm sure that some wise individual can explain the reasoning behind the law to me if I am just patient.

[jmg257]

33. Well - let's see...

265.37 Unlawful possession of certain ammunition feeding devices.
It shall be unlawful for a person to knowingly possess an ammunition
feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective
date of the chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added
this section, that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or
converted to accept more than seven but less than ten rounds of
ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of
ammunition.

If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is
possessed within the home of the possessor, the person so possessing the
device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of a violation and subject
to a fine of two hundred dollars, and for a second offense, be guilty of
a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars and a
term of up to three months imprisonment.
If such device containing more than seven rounds of ammunition is
possessed in any location other than the home of the possessor, the
person so possessing the device shall, for a first offense, be guilty of
a class B misdemeanor and subject to a fine of two hundred dollars and a
term of up to six months imprisonment, and for a second offense, be
guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

* NB Effective March 16, 2013

As for your follow-up, you're on your own...I'm still wrestling with whether an M1 actually has a fixed capacity magazine, and/or if M1 clips are ammunition feeding devices.

[spin]

34. Thanks much. ...

I personally feel that an M1 clip would qualify as an ammunition feeding device and unfortunately the standard clip holds 8 rounds.

[jmg257]

36. See...at 1st glance yes, but DOJ and CA DOJ say other wise.

"...Comments expressed concern about the use of the term “magazine,” which is often erroneously used to describe clips that are used to load ammunition into a fixed magazine. Recognizing that to be true, the Department changed the word “magazine” to the statutory term “ammunition feeding device"...Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.”

Which actually makes sense. Though the M1 is still a bit stange as the clip becomes part of the 'magazine'.


OK - how about this one?!?

Exemptions from SAFE Act AW definition:

a rifle, shotgun or pistol, or a replica or a duplicate thereof,
specified in Appendix A to 18 U.S.C. 922 as such weapon was manufactured
on October first, nineteen hundred ninety-three.

The list specifcally excludes M1 Carbines, yet that Appendix A is no longer part of federal code! So is it a valid exemption, is the list, which can still be found, part of NY law or not?

[spin]

37. It could also be pointed out that some revolvers hold 8 or 10 rounds in the cylinder. ...

I own a S&W .22 caliber revolver that holds 10 rounds and several companies make .357 magnum revolvers with a capacity of 8 rounds.

Perhaps if I live in New York State I should be only be allowed to load 7 rounds in the cylinder of my .22 caliber target revolver.

[denverbill]

7. OK I stand corrected. I would have sworn Hickenlooper would have vetoed one or more of these.

I'm still convinced he's more of a libertarian than a Democrat, but I guess in this case, he stands for common sense. Credit where credit is due.

[apocalypsehow]

16. Good work, Colorado Democrats!

[spin]

32. I'll congratulate them on passing the background check provision ...

but I fear the ban on hi-cap magazines might be unenforceable and could be overturned by the courts.

[slackmaster]

22. And so begins a round of court challenges

[Robb]

35. "Similar language is used in other states’ statutes limiting large-capacity magazines...."

By its terms, the law does make illegal any magazine manufactured or purchased after July 1, 2013, that is capable of accepting, or is designed to be readily converted to accept, more that 15 rounds of ammunition.

Similar language is used in other states’ statutes limiting large-capacity magazines. We know that magazine manufacturers have produced and sell magazines that comply with these other state laws that limit large-capacity magazines and we are aware of no successful legal challenges to those laws.

-- Statement of Gov. Hickenlooper, upon the signing of HB13-1224
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=GovHickenlooper%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251640790516&pagename=CBONWrapper

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Ah, but the *gun* restrictions might be vulnerable, as I pointed out in post #25

[Robb]

40. Which gun restrictions?

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. I stand corrected- it appears the gun restrictions were dropped.

Nonetheless, the magazine restrictions are pointless, as they will still be freely available in surrounding states
without a background check- and they won't have "built on" dates stamped on them, either.

[Robb]

42. Which gun restrictions were dropped?

[kudzu22]

23. I have a sneaking suspicion

that Colorado is going to end up paying Alan Gura a lot of money.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. No shit- the gun restrictions not only go against Heller, but Miller as well.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. rumor has it that most sheriffs outside of Denver do not plan on enforcing it with any veracity ...

meh. you know how rumors are