Colorado Governor to Sheriffs: Hey, Sorry About That New Gun Control Law

[Gerowen]

 

Back in March 2013 (and after a massive cash dump from former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg), Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed new anti-gun legislation into law.

 

In response to the legislation, a few months later Colorado State Senate President John Morse and State Senator Angela Giron were recalled in a historic defense of Second Amendment rights. Further, not only did Colorado sheriffs refuse to enforce the law, they sued over it.

 

Now, Hickenlooper is apologizing for signing the legislation without meeting with sheriffs beforehand and is admitting his office did not expect the backlash.

 

 

Source with more

[macrosslover]

I won't say I'm a fervent supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I do support the right of people to own a gun.  That said, after reading that article and at least the two things it highlights, background checks for all gun sales and banning ammo magazines larger than 15 rounds, I don't see what the problem is.  I've never understood why hardcore 2nd amendment supporters disapprove of a background check.  I remember when they passed it and yeah they shoved it down, which you should never do with any legislation, but I don't see any problems with requiring background checks.

[Nerd Rage]

I thought background checks were required across the board.  Shows how much I know I guess.  I am a strong gun rights supporter and think people should be able to buy the types of guns they want without restrictions on type, ammo capacity, etc, but I definitely agree with having background checks.  If you need a background check to get a job in most cases, you would think that would be required before purchasing a firearm.

[Gerowen]

I won't say I'm a fervent supporter of the 2nd amendment, but I do support the right of people to own a gun.  That said, after reading that article and at least the two things it highlights, background checks for all gun sales and banning ammo magazines larger than 15 rounds, I don't see what the problem is.  I've never understood why hardcore 2nd amendment supporters disapprove of a background check.  I remember when they passed it and yeah they shoved it down, which you should never do with any legislation, but I don't see any problems with requiring background checks.

Here's my issue with the whole "background check" thing.  Background checks are already a legal requirement.  If you go into a gun store, you cannot walk out the door with a firearm without undergoing a background check.  Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying.  Now private transfers on the other hand are not bound by this requirement.  For example, if I sell my gun to my buddy across the creek, there is no legal requirement for me to go pay a bunch of legal fees and have a background check ran, I'm guessing partly because it would involve me taking possession of the personal information of the individual buying the weapon from me.  That's what this whole "gun show loophole" thing everybody talks about is.  It's not that background checks aren't required at gun shows, it's the fact that if I as an individual want to go to a gun show and sell one of my weapons, I can do so without the legal requirement to run a background check on the buyers since I'm not a gun "dealer" and selling guns is not my primary source of income.  It would make me feel better if there was a way for civilians to run a background check because I keep records of sales when I make one anyway, but at the same time, I don't think making it a legal requirement would accomplish much.  People who want to sell them to Billy Jo Gangsta down the street aren't worried about breaking the background check law if they want to sell it to a guy who they know would fail the background check anyway.  However, I do think the system that is in place needs some SERIOUS work, because people like the Navy Yard shooter are passing background checks even though they have a history of gun violence, but veterans who tell a doctor that they are a little stressed out get denied.

 

The problem I have with magazine size is, it's arbitrary.  Why 15?  Why not 5?  10?  20?  30?  It's all arbitrary and has nothing to do with reducing the lethality of firearms, or making it harder for criminals to get them.  A magazine law would not have stopped or hindered any of the recent school/mass shootings that have occurred.  Anybody with 10 minutes of practice can swap magazines out fast enough for it to be of no consequence.  Magazines are not serialized either, so how in the world would a magazine ban be enforced?  I run around with a 20 rounder in my rifle because the 30 rounders stick down too far and are awkward for me, and the 10 rounders are so small they're difficult to get hold of when you want to remove them.  Instead of attacking magazine size or how a firearm looks or operates, I think we need to take a serious look at the means by which people with violent histories are still passing background checks and getting their hands on weapons.

[DocM]

Background checks for new firearms purchases are required under federal law using the NICS instant background check system. What some of these laws do is require a second check at the cost of the purchaser, which is silly.

The issue of private sales is another matter and controlled by state law. Some states require all private sales to go through a dealer who does the check, others have no check at all, and others like Michigan have a split system where long arms are exempt and only private handgun sales are subject. IMO this is a matter for state legislatures, but it should be done in a sane and fair manner.

The Sheriffs reasoning was multi-fold, and some points were valid. I also have a problem with an outside government official like Bloomberg essentially bribing the state to change their gun laws.

Magazine limits are stupid. Let's say you have the 15 round mag on a rifle. Someone with ill intent can simply tape 2 mags together. One empties and they just release and flip it - takes <2 seconds. Carry several pairs. Can also be done with pistol mags by fastening end to end. An ineffective, feels-good the day you pass it law.

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Background checks for new firearms purchases are required under federal law using the NICS instant background check system. What some of these laws do is require a second check at the cost of the purchaser, which is silly.

The issue of private sales is another matter and controlled by state law. Some states require all private sales to go through a dealer who does the check, others have no check at all, and others like Michigan have a split system where long arms are exempt and only private handgun sales are subject. IMO this is a matter for state legislatures, but it should be done in a sane and fair manner.

The Sheriffs reasoning was multi-fold, and some points were valid. I also have a problem with an outside government official like Bloomberg essentially bribing the state to change their gun laws.

Magazine limits are stupid. Let's say you have the 15 round mag on a rifle. Someone with ill intent can simply tape 2 mags together. One empties and they just release and flip it - takes <2 seconds. Carry several pairs. Can also be done with pistol mags by fastening end to end. An ineffective, feels-good the day you pass it law.

Depends on the state. PA doesn't use NICS, but some form of a background check is mandated by Federal Law in my understanding.

[DocM]

Yup. Some states use their own system which is fine.

Now ask why a pistol would need a 17 or 19 round magazine? The VAST majority of them are 9mm's which are low enough on stopping power you're trained to fire in 2-3 shot vollys (6-9 vollys per mag). This essentially turns that 19 shot pistol into a 6 or 9 shot, and is why you see a few cops opening fire at once shooting 20+ rounds.

A more powerful round like a .40 or .45 is not so limited and often delivers a 1 shot drop. My SIG P250sc carries 11 (10 in the mag, 1 in the pipe.)

[+LogicalApex MVC]

Yup. Some states use their own system which is fine.

Now ask why a pistol would need a 17 or 19 round magazine? The VAST majority of them are 9mm's which are low enough on stopping power you're trained to fire in 2-3 shot vollys (6-9 vollys per mag). This essentially turns that 19 shot pistol into a 6 or 8 shot, and is why you see a few cops opening fire at once shooting 20+ rounds.

A more powerful round like a .40 or .45 is not so limited and often delivers a 1 shot drop. My SIG P250sc carries 11 (10 in the mag, 1 in the pipe.)

My .45 carries 14 rounds (13 in the mag, 1 in the chamber). That should be enough to make it through the worst possible self defense situation I'll ever hope to encounter, but I am also not a fan of arbitrary magazine size limits.

[DocM]

The SIG P250 is an interesting beast in that it's the Transformer of pistols.

By removing the fire control module (the only registered part) and dropping it into a differenrt handle it changes from a subcompact to a compact, or to a full size service pistol, in <2 minutes. Each has a different mag capacity to match. Very handy.

They can also change calibers. Mine can switch between a .40 and .357 SIG (used by Federal Air Marshals) by just swapping the barrel. Same mag.

[astropheed Veteran]

I don't think making it a legal requirement would accomplish much.  People who want to sell them to Billy Jo Gangsta down the street aren't worried about breaking the background check law if they want to sell it to a guy who they know would fail the background check anyway. 

 

It's not the law that enforces it, it's the punishment. You can't enforce the punishment without it first being punishable.

 

That logic I feel could be applied to Drunk Driving. When a drunk gets into a Car they most likely don't think they'll hurt anyone. And although it's illegal they do it anyways. So why even make it a law?

[DocM]

Gunrunning is already illegal, so new laws will have no effect on Billy Jo Gangsta.