It's a wonder what a motivated and politically savvy pressure group with Dems in control of government can do when the sharp objects are moved out of reach of the children.

As for the petulant County Sheriffs, if enforcement becomes a real problem, then the state can create a ATF like branch of the Colorado state patrol and citizens can simply call them in. And the County Sheriffs would have zero authority to block or hinder them.

That'd be a trip: a well armed militia enforcing the laws that the duly elected sheriffs refuse to enforce. After which the Repug judges and district attorneys refuse to prosecute, evolving into vigilante law ... It's back to the freakin' wild wild west.

The creation of militias were not to establish vigilante law. It was established to prevent people's rights from being taken away.

Alva, is your middle name Brainiac? Just askin'.

The militias in the south were used to control the slaves. There is also the thought of a citizens militia to repel an unjust federal army, like Washington warned of.

I think the average American of today doesn't understand what the word militia meant to a person of the 18th century.

That is why I think the 2nd Amendment is an anachronism.

Now what colorado needs to do is focus on criminal control not gun control!!!

a criminal that commits a gun crime against innocent people should not have any rights, that person is now a terrorist and should not be granted to free education, and medical services ECT....

take away prisons funding for criminal education, TV's, Games, commissary and and make them work hard labor and you will see crime rates decrease!!!!

we need to use colorado corrections funding for our schools and other colorado issues.

if these criminals that have committed gun crimes had a more severe punishment their would be less gun crimes in colorado.

Once again, it is Bloomberg and not Organizing for Action making concrete political acts to bring progressive policy proposals into law.

For the life of me, I haven't a clue what their hang up is. I read their stated rationale, and their proposals for watch parties and so on, but really I can't shake the Norman Rockwell image of antiquarian political organizing. They are talking about organizing based on geographical co-occurrence of supporters.

It seems to me that OFA is moribund.

If OFA is moribund you are terminally anal.

Fine- if you are in anyway connected to OFA- prove to me you guys are real.

Do something.

Anything. Bloomberg has already taken two actions with real consequences.

Weld County is the capital of Teh Stupid in Colorado and has been since Greeley was founded.

@Phenner, it may be worthwhile to read this January Coloradoan article on neighboring Larimer County's Sheriff Justin Smith's reasoning on his authority of HOW he meets his mandated duties: http://www.coloradoan.com/article/20130121/NEWS01/301210028/Larimer-County-sheriff-responds-questions-about-Facebook-gun-post

I am not in agreement with all of his views, but he does offer a real explanation on the flexibility of enforcement allowed by his position. He must be aware that his constituents, those he answers to, are not exactly pushovers. Larimer County residents, composed of the more progressive Fort Collins and Loveland, would be more likely to demand legitimate explanations, and less likely to roll naked in hyperbolic rhetorical BS, than those in Greeley.

The supreme court has ruled that an individuals right to firearms exists

Just as they have ruled Obamacare is legal

Just as they have ruled abortion is legal

This cherry picking is getting sickening to me

I do not question that the American people have the right to bear arms. But the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a limit to the kind of weapons we may keep in our homes for our self defense.

My point is that the rule of law is more effective as a means of defense. I feel more secure in my home and on the streets of my community if I know that my fellow citizens are not carrying military style weapons.

I do not fear my government even though my current representatives are not ones I voted for. I have faith in the rule of law, and I do not want to have to carry a gun. I do not know how to shoot a gun accurately and it would be a danger to me much more than a protections. And I am not allowed to shoot the biggest threat to my property which are deer and sometimes cows.

5.2 could you point out what I said that was incorrect?

5.3 Its your choice whether to own a firearm or not--as it should be

Just as it is someones choice in these other examples given.(except for the requirement of carrying healthcare--although they can choose the fee/tax)

I have my doubts one could resist drones and f-18s with or without assault rifles my opposition is not rooted in some government overthrow fantasy its rooted in fact that fact being firearm ownership is on par or nearly equivalent to free speech(more restricted in Europe you can get arrested for off color twitter posts) Abortion(completely banned in Ireland) et al

I think Democrats will come to regret this. They can't get gun bans passed at the federal level. Where they get it passed at the state level, it will likely be overturned by the courts, and could cost them elections. Meanwhile, red states are expanding gun rights, and there's little to nothing Dems can do about it.

When it's all said and done, I suspect they will regret not embracing the status quo.

Alva get over it, your side lost and your argument is one giant sieve.

My side lost? How's that AWB working out for ya?

Utah permit in Colorado.

- Colorado's law covers citizens of COLORADO when it comes to issuing permits.

- Anti-gun stuff is GOOD policy and GOOD politics.

- The statement about the Kochs is irrelevant, plus it makes no sense.

If this continues the Republicans will be without a home. Various parts of the country have prove that the NRA positions CAN be beaten.

Backround checks are already required
in all 50 states

Currently the Colorado legislature, governor, and both senators are Democrats refer back to this post in 2014 and see how this legislation worked out in a 50/50 state that likes its gun rights

Question: What if 15 round magazines aren't available? what if 10 round magazines aren't? what if 7 round magazines aren't? You know what that is? A slick way to impose a defacto gun ban.

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

When I read in the second paragraph, Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States, it doesn't sound like this applies to ~40% of gun sales. That is a "half truth".

Is this not a factual claim? The National Review Online calls it dubious however I tend to doubt the National Review period.

"What ifs?" don't count either unless they're systematically actually being imposed and then, you have me as an ally for what that is worth.

What is it really about controlling or at least attempting to control weapons of this nature that gets your goat(s)? Is the nature of "gun control" to save lives or simply to persecute legal gun owners?

The numbers here are murky. Let me explain.

When you buy a gun at a federal firearm license dealer, you establish a paper trail. From this, we know how many guns are sold, what state they're sold in, what store sold it, and who it sold it to.

When you go to a gun show to buy a gun, there are background checks there too. Why? Because FFLs sell guns at gun shows.

The only time you don't have to conduct a background check is when a private person sells another private person living in the same state a gun.

So if I sold a gun to my next door neighbor, then yes, I can legally do that with out a background check, but there is no paper trail. No record of that sale.

Since there is no record, then how do we know it amounts to 40% of all gun sales. The answer is we don't. Any estimates are just wild guesses.

Federalist 46 is not law, nor is it instructive in this case. And if the guy that shot Mr. Clements is part of a well regulated militia I will personally donate $100 to the GOP.

When the 2nd Amendment says "necessary to the Security of a Free State," it was guaranteeing the right of slave states to maintain local militias for the purpose of suppressing slave uprisings in the event that a future abolitionist Federal Government refused to do so.

Yet, the Federalist papers have been cited by the courts endlessly in ruling after ruling. It explains the reasoning the Founders used when establishing the Constitution, and in this case, the 2nd amendment. If we follow this logically, Colorado Dems have just signed tyranny into law.

On your later point, I refer you to the Heller decision:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

What seems to be ignored quite a bit here is the clause: being necessary to the security of a free state A well regulated

Fixed it for you.

Now I wasn't around when it was written, but you need to consider the context - we had the revolutionary war not long before and the phrase you are hung up on, "being necessary to the security of a free state" was most likely included to provide that the populace not be disarmed by the state should this new government not work out.

Times have changed. The "deranged conspiracy kook" label is well deserved for people who think that because they own a gun that they can potentially dictate to the government and/or think that they can decide that the government needs to be overthrown. Try it, you won't get very far.

Thank you for pointing out that this really isn't an "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns" thing but an "I need to defend myself from the government" thing. There is no scenario in which you win and if you haven't noticed, none of these laws being proposed take away the right to own guns, just the type/magazine. But you people are so worked up over strengthening background checks and the sensible limiting of magazine capacity you, in your paranoia, automatically assume it will lead to total confiscation. Why do you make that leap? If there is such a push back on the rather tame legislation being considered, how would the outright, unconstitutional banning of weapons ever get signed in to law? If it did, would you come out shooting those responsible, or would you vote them out, or bring a case on the law to the courts to determine it's constitutionality? Are you afraid that mental health checks might show that your delusional paranoia would render you unfit to own a gun?

Colorado Dems have just signed tyranny into law

Please explain. What is tyrannical about it? Why do you always ignore the "well regulated" part? Does it infringe on your unlimited right to prepare for anarchy?

1) "well-regulated" here means "well trained" or "well regimented".

2) I just gave you the context. Read Federalist 46.

3) It has nothing to do with dictating anything to the gov't. It has to do with acting as a stop gap measure to prevent gov't from taking away our rights. This was a major concern of the founders. This is why the Commander in Chief of the military is a civilian. This is why we have the 3rd amendment. This is why Jefferson and Madison tried to eliminate standing armies. This is why the Bill of Rights don't include words like "you have the right of free speech", but that "Congress shall make no law".

4) If you think this is an ineffective check, then you haven't heard of an armed insurgency.

5) There are already proposals to confiscate guns. Missouri's House bill 545 does exactly that. If you limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds, and 7 round magazines aren't made, that is a defacto gun ban.

6) Another stop gap against tyranny is voting out the tyrants. Madison said this explicitly in Federalist 46.

7) Is that the summation of your argument? Outlaw guns because gun owners are crazy? Good luck trying to declare 79 million Americans crazy.

RE: 12.2

Alan, yeh, I heard that theory from Thom Hartmann too. It's irrelevant. Madison makes it very clear why that phrase is included in the 2nd amendment. And it has absolutely nothing to do with slaves.

I mentioned the context, not to say that you were taking it out of context, but that the context of the time in which it was written no longer exists (for most people).

Is that the summation of your argument? Outlaw guns because gun owners are crazy? Good luck trying to declare 79 million Americans crazy.

This is an example of your delusions - I never said anything about outlawing guns and I didn't even say gun owners are crazy, I have my doubts though, about the ones that find any new restrictions as a stepping stone to a total ban. If you read my post and came away with "outlaw guns because gun owners are crazy" it's no wonder that you see these Colorado laws as a means to confiscation. The point I was making is that you have illustrated that the conventional reason for opposition to gun regulations (self-defense from criminals) is not your primary concern, but rather it appears that fear of the government is your motivating factor. Some people find that thinking crazy.

This is an article about 3 Colorado gun laws that "...require universal background checks, payment of the $10 cost by the person being checked instead of by the state, and a limit of 15 rounds on ammunition magazines..." You have deemed them tyrannical, and by quoting parts of the second amendment, apparently unconstitutional, again conveniently ignoring the "well regulated" part. Somehow from this you have extrapolated that confiscation will be the logical next step.

You quote the Heller decision, but again you conveniently ignore paragraph 2 "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..." It would seem your definition of "Well regulated" is not shared by the Supreme Court (which did not define it). I can not speak to the proposals in Missouri (which, as presented by you, would have no chance of being enacted), but sticking to the laws signed by the Colorado Governor, do you feel they violate the Heller decision? How are they tyrannical? Are they overly burdensome?

As you quoted from Heller: "...to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes;" do you consider an armed insurgency a "traditionally lawful purpose?"

I forgot to ask: If magazines are limited to a capacity of 7 rounds and if 7 round magazines aren't made, don't you think the gun manufacturers would be tripping over themselves to be the first in the state to make and sell 7 round magazines?

I have my doubts though, about the ones that find any new restrictions as a stepping stone to a total ban.

You might think differently if you were paying closer attention to what your side is really doing and really proposing. The "relax! you're crazy!" argument doesn't work when Democrats in the states are proposing legislation that would require nearly every gun owner to turn over their weapons within 90 days or be considered a class C felon.

The point I was making is that you have illustrated that the conventional reason for opposition to gun regulations (self-defense from criminals) is not your primary concern

Utterly wrong. Self-defense is the only reason why I own a gun. But that wasn't James Madison's primary concern. I was simply relating what Madison had to say on the subject.

You have deemed them tyrannical

No, I did not. I said if you follow James Madison's logic in Federalist #46, this law is tyrannical.

conveniently ignoring the "well regulated" part.

I addressed the "well regulated" phrase elsewhere here. Did you not see it?

Let's continue on with that quote from the Heller decision, shall we?

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

You said,

do you feel they violate the Heller decision?

I suspect the courts will have to look at the magazine limit of 15 rounds.

do you consider an armed insurgency a "traditionally lawful purpose?"

No, I do not. But like I said, that was James Madison's argument, not mine. Again, quoting from Federalist #46:

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.

I forgot to ask: If magazines are limited to a capacity of 7 rounds and if 7 round magazines aren't made, don't you think the gun manufacturers would be tripping over themselves to be the first in the state to make and sell 7 round magazines?

No. The gun industry has more overhead costs than you might realize. For instance, I own a Stoeger Cougar. It's a gun that was made by Beretta, but with the changing market, Beretta couldn't afford to keep making it, so they shipped the tooling for that design to Turkey, where labor costs are lower.

Try to have a laser grip for a less popular gun. It's simply not made with a lot of models. Why? Not enough market share.

10 round magazines are commonly available because of California. But the only 7 round magazines made are the guns that were designed to take 7 rounds in the first place.

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that provides for the unlimited and unregulated owning of weapons by the citizenry.

Or have you, too, failed to grasp the meaning of a sub-ordinate clause?

If you're that worried about those scary people invading your home, then get the h&ll out of that cul-de-sac and move someplace where the coming and going of strangers just might be noticed! Or your own little island, your choice.

'Course then, you'd have to develop a new set of paranoias...

You yell fire in crowded theaters for kicks too I bet.

Dodge City Dem, I regularly carry concealed. In order to do so, it must be concealed. This means no one is to know that you have a gun on you. If anyone knows you do, or you allow someone to see it, then that is a crime. It's called brandishing.

May I also state that you should never, ever, ever call out someone for having a gun on them. That could be seen as a threat, and that gun may be used against you.

I carry concealed to protect myself, my family and to protect others. The last thing I would ever want to do is put people in danger. I assure you, you will not be in danger from me whether I'm armed or if I'm not armed.

Guns do in fact save lives. They can do this because good law abiding citizens, most of whom you would never suspect, are looking out for your safety and the safety of others. Please don't make that more difficult by acting in a dangerous manner like trying to call people out for having a gun.

In my home state of Virginia, OPEN carry is legal. You don't even need a permit to do so. Legally, I can strap a gun to my hip in full view, and there's nothing the police can do about it. However, unless I'm camping, I would never do such a thing. Why? Because it freaks people out. It scares them. And when people are scared, they get hurt.

So please, for the love of God, don't put people in danger for no good reason by trying to call someone out for having a gun. You have no idea how utterly irresponsible and dangerous that is. Please, please, please, just don't do it.

Yes, never point out that a gun nut like Alva Goldbook is carrying a gun because he might flip out and murder you in cold blood and then claim he felt "threatened." You're a sick little Zimmerman-wannabe, aren't you?

Alan, under Virginia state law, I can only use a gun to defend myself if two legal criteria have been met.

1) I fear for my life

2) I can prove to a reasonable person, that if I didn't act in self-defense, that I would likely have died or been seriously injured.

Do you not know how pistols work? Why do you assume that I have any desire to commit a felony, much less kill innocent people and children? I am strictly prohibited from using a gun for self-defense unless I can prove that if I did not do so I would have likely been killed. Why do you have such a problem with me protecting myself and my family?

"I am strictly prohibited from using a gun for self-defense unless I can prove that if I did not do so I would have likely been killed." Where do you live?!? Because in more than a few states, being in the presence of a black youth who is insufficiently deferential is grounds for lethal "self-defense."

Nonsense. Let's establish a few scenarios. Suppose I'm standing in front of a restaurant and a guy has a knife, cutting up samples of food and giving them to people passing by. Can I use a gun to defend myself because that guy has a knife? No. I haven't established that my life was in danger because he had a knife.

Now suppose this guy turns to me, swings the knife at me, and says, "I'm gonna kill you, you SOB!" Then yes, I can legally defend myself with a gun in that instance.

Which states are those? Could you give an example of this?

Alex, gun laws are complex, and I only know the laws at the federal level and at the state level of my home state of Virginia. This is what Virginia state laws says about this matter.

Stand your ground laws are actually much the same.

The legal difference in this is minute. Suppose I get into an argument with somebody, say in a parking lot. Some guy decides to say, "hey you SOB, I don't like you". If I respond by saying, "well I think you're an SOB too" then legally speaking, I have just escalated the argument. This means that if the argument gets more heated and the guy comes after me, then I'm legally prohibited from using my gun in self defense because I escalated the argument.

In such a case, I am legally required to run away until I can't run any more. I am also required, by law, to tell my attacker that I'm giving up. If, the guy is still attacking me, and I'm cornered, and I can't escape anymore, then and only then can I use my gun to defend myself. And when I do so, I won't get to plead a "justifiable homicide" defense in court, I'll have to use an "excusable homicide" defense in court, which is harder to win.

Since that's the case, and it's the case in my states, gun owners are told if you're going to carry concealed you never ever ever want to start a fight, or escalate a fight. In other words, you're always polite.

Some stand your ground laws have changed the running away aspect of this, but like I said, I'm not all that familiar with the laws in other states.

Virginia?!? Oh my gosh, Alva . . . I just put it together. No wonder you're always afraid of some armed thug jumping out and shooting at you. You live in Hogan's Alley!!

actually I live in the burbs of Washington, D.C. Northern Virginia is very blue. The county I live in is one of two that swung the state of Virginia blue in the '08 and '12 elections. Yes, I voted for Obama too.

Alva, I trust by your words you understand the significance of the burden of proof shift posed by some "stand your ground"s and the cultural implications alone. I trust in the future this can be discussed more seriously.