Colorado's Gun Control Measures (2014, buying, law)

[ELCO5280]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

But the 2nd Amendment clearly states the "right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..." National Guard is a function of government, so a rule banning non-national guard members from owning a gun violates the 2nd Amendment.

US Supreme Court has already ruled that it is constitutional for the people to own and bear arms.

Per Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who wrote the opinion for the court's dominant conservatives, said: "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

[bluescreen73]

Originally Posted by davebarnes

If United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia allows machine guns to be regulated so heavily that they are effectively outlawed, then why can't we do the same with semi-automatic weapons?

Why should it be legal to own a semi-automatic assault rifle, but not legal to own a ManPAD? If I am going to be part of a militia, then I should be able to own an effective weapon against aircraft.

Because when you say semi-automatic weapons you're painting with a really broad brush. You're not just getting AR-15s, you're also getting pistols and carbines like an SKS that don't fit the typical "assault weapon" mold.

I personally don't see any reason for someone to have an AR-15, an AK-47, or a Mac-10 but banning them at this stage of the game is window dressing. They're so widespread that the government would literally have to physically round them up by force and that would play right into gun rights supporters' doomsday scenario. Changing our culture and trying to prevent unstable nutjobs from getting access to weapons would go a lot further.

A clueless idiot firing an M82 concerns me the same or more than someone with an AK-47.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

I agree on the two that were killed. Those two were just idiotic, to put it nicely. Regarding those that remain, I believe that a law should serve a purpose. When you make a law, you destroy freedom on some level, as law and freedom are mutually exclusive. Of course you need a balance between the two. These laws don't meet that balance in my opinion. I think the law makers have failed to demonstrate how these laws satisfy their stated purposes. A fee for a background check? How does that make anyone safer?

I can see both sides on these 4, they just don't bother me. To be honest they are not a big deal for me either way and wont change how I vote if they pass or not. As far as the fee. There is a fee to get a license so why not a fee to get a back ground check? If someone wants a gun pony up the money.

[Snikt]

The magazine ban is stupid, it won't prevent any crime and there is no actual data the Dems used to pass the bill. The bottom line is that criminals don't follow the laws and this won't have any impact on them getting magazines, especially when it's as easy as legally purchasing them in Wyoming or elsewhere.

[Seeker5in1]

Isn't anyone in Colorado incensed about an outsider like Bloomberg coming in and bulldozing the state government with his billions to push his radical leftist agenda? This will be appealed to the Supreme Court of course, but the gun grabbers are counting on Obama to appoint at least one more leftist justice before the case gets there. They have their plan to disarm the American people and they are proceeding with it one step at a time.

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I can see both sides on these 4, they just don't bother me. To be honest they are not a big deal for me either way and wont change how I vote if they pass or not. As far as the fee. There is a fee to get a license so why not a fee to get a back ground check? If someone wants a gun pony up the money.

But the law states that it is done in the interest of public health and safety. How does charging a fee accomplish this? If it doesn't actually accomplish the stated purpose, it shouldn't be passed and signed into law.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Seeker5in1

Isn't anyone in Colorado incensed about an outsider like Bloomberg coming in and bulldozing the state government with his billions to push his radical leftist agenda?

Gun laws are not a radicle left idea but more a geographic one. I know people who are very far left yet are against any gun laws, more so then me, and I know people who are far right who are for some gun laws, some more then me.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

But the law states that it is done in the interest of public health and safety. How does charging a fee accomplish this? If it doesn't actually accomplish the stated purpose, it shouldn't be passed and signed into law.

It has to be paid for especially in this economy. I have no problem if they want the gun buyer to pay for his own background check.

[lurtsman]

Originally Posted by CoventryDude

May your chains rest lightly upon you-

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

This is the most intelligent and well-read post I have ever seen on City-data. It deserves reputation from every reader.

[lurtsman]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

About a week ago I wrote this letter to Governor Hickenlooper's office:


Dear Governor,

As a Colorado resident and military officer currently stationed in Virginia, I am greatly troubled by the recent gun legislation that passed the Colorado House Assembly. This legislation will soon be subject to review and debate by the State Senate. Should the Senate approve the legislation, I strongly urge you to not to sign into law any legislation that infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens.

Colorado is a great state with a long history of rugged independence and proud tradition of responsible gun ownership and firearms proficiency. I understand that in the face of tragedies such as the Century 16 Theater in Aurora and the Sandy Hook shooting in Newton, combined with our still painful memories of the Columbine High School shooting our response may be to react by imposing strict gun laws in an effort to prevent future tragedies. I question if such legislation is a good idea, however. Consider Illinois, a state which boasts some of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the United States, yet the City of Chicago is in an era of violence surpassed in its severity only by the Al Capone era. If passing gun legislation were the answer, Chicago would be the safest major city in the country. We are fooling ourselves if we think we can address the actions of law breakers by restricting the rights of law abiders.

Freedom and legislation are mutually exclusive. With this in mind, legislation should be considered only when there is no other alternative, because legislation by nature infringes upon the freedoms of the citizen. In my adult life I have endeavored to avoid making big decisions on an emotional high or low state of mind. Such reactionary behavior often results in sub-optimal results. With this in mind, I make an effort to make big decisions in my life only after a sustained level of logical consideration. Similarly, legislation taken in a reactive spirit, such as House Bills 1224, 1226, 1228, and 1229, is powered by emotion and not a sustained level of logical or critical thought. If the state is going to impose upon the liberties of its citizens, it should at minimum oblige itself to do so under a sustained level of logic rather than an emotional reaction to a tragedy. I find it somewhat ironic that each bill ends with a safety clause stipulating that the bill is proposed in the interest of “public peace, health and safety.” As I read each bill, I could not help but be reminded of the wise words of Benjamin Franklin, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I have read reports that you support the proposed legislation that I have identified above and that you intend to sign it if it passes the State Senate. This will be a sad day for the State of Colorado. I have long looked forward to the day in which I leave military service and return home to Colorado to continue my life in the state I love most. However, I have carefully weighed the ramifications of this legislation and have deemed it incompatible with my values and rights as an American. It is with a heavy heart that I will be forced to switch my residency (and with it my taxable earnings and commerce) to the State of Virginia, a place where Second Amendments rights are still valued by the state level government.

This is a decision point I wish to avoid, and I hope that you will do everything in your power to preserve the rights of Americans citizens and Colorado residents. I strongly urge you to seek alternatives that address the root of the problem rather than the symptoms.

Sincerely,

[iknowftbll]
Colorado Resident, State District 35
Captain, USMC

You have been repped up for your excellent letter, and in honor of your service as a captain in the USMC. Thank you for your sacrifice.