CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 11, 2013 02:01 PM UTC
27 Comments
If by "working" you mean trampling the God given rights of everyone in America- ok. Well, except for non-citizens – no guns for them.
Yeah, and what if those homicidal, wife-beatin' rapists only wanted to use the gun for shooting watermelons, or self-defense when they're buying dope. Aren't those valid exceptions to the law?
Elliot, we need your considered opinion here, please.
What you forget is, Democrats claimed that 40% or more of guns were being transfered privately. That's far more gun sales than these sales with background checks can account for. That means either Dems were lying about the number of private transfers, which undermines the reason for HB1229 in the first place, or the law is useless because most buyers are simply not complying.
Neither makes your precious background checks look effective.
Can you cite the source on the 40% number? I'm genuinly curious, because I don't remember that stat being thrown around at all.
I do remember that number being thrown around and it turned out to be exaggerated. The inaccuracy deserves criticism but that doesn't change the fact that a significant number of sales, 6 dozen, to bad actors were stopped in a matter of months.
Look at the numbers Scott Gessler was throwing around trying to raise hysteria in support of new rules that would suppress the vote. Though off by a ridiculous number of magnitudes, much less percentage points, I didn't hear Modster complaining about those or about Gessler's draconian solutions to a problem that, unlike gun violence, turned out to be too insignificant to merit any solutions at all.
Judging by Modster's indignant reaction to the inaccurate 40% figure, the waste, inconvenience and right trampling of Gessler's policy, based on far, far more inaccurate claims ought to be even more upsetting to Modster, especially considering that Gessler couldn't show so much as a single impacted election. But somehow, it isn't. Hmmmm…..
Wait a minute. If that's true of me, it's true of you in the inverse isn't it? I guess we're both hypocrites. 🙂
This isn't the bill most of us are upset about anyway. Repeal the mag ban and save yourselves in 2014.
Well….I'll get behind repeal of the mag ban when Magpul leaves.
The mag ban limitation is meaningless except int he rarest of situations when it isn't.
You give up on the "laws don't work'cause criminals just break 'em anyway" and save yourself. I've had all the saving I need.
There is a possible middle ground too. I believe a compromise bill to change the mag ban to a 30 round limit would be a face saving way out for Dems. This would satisfy gun owners desire for standard capacity magazines for our guns, and would still ban giant drums like the one used in Aurora. I don't own any of those and I think they're stupid.
Lots of Republicans want Democrats to fail, all I want is good policy. Democrats should consider what I'm proposing.
Well then! Conisder it considered.
A compromise involves concessions from both sides. What Moddy is suggesting is a Republican Compromise, which means, "give us exactly what we want, with no concessions from our side, and we'll call it a compromise".
This gun owner doesn't own any 30-round magazines — and, I think they're stupid. (Actually the magazine isn't stupid, that particular ilk of gun-owner that thinks he "needs' 30-rounds military capacity in a single magazine is . . . ) Anyway, I think ten is plenty, but I'm willing to let let you have 15, becaue I realize you probably don't practice nearly as much as you mewl, and you probably do need something to compensate for your crappy, unpracticied shooting skills.
Just a few years back you could only get 10-round magazines, that was then "the standard" — there's your compromise! Happy now?!?
Do you really think that the fools (which you eumphamistically call "gun-owners") are ever going to be "satisfied."
Look liar, there are 70 million gun-owners in the United States only 4 million of which are present/former NRA members, and of those 4 million a whole lot of us are completly fed up with the NRA's failiure to address the concerns of legitimate gun owners, prefering instead to be the arms-at-any-cost-to-society shills for the armaments manufacturers.
News flash, the biggest threat to your "gun rights" today isn't the Democratic party, or the sensible laws in Colorado — it's the NRA!!! Reasonable regulation will preserve your gun rights by helping keep guns of certian types out of the hands of certain types. If the NRA had its way, we'd arm everyone who wanted to with anything that a gun manufacturer could build or sell.
But here's the rub, eventually one or two of those "we-never-thought-we'd-see-this-coming" shooters is going to perpetrate a masacre so horrendous and so unthinkable (and the fact that Columbine, Aurora, Newton, Virginia Tech, etc., etc., hasn't yet been that one incident is only testament to the undeserving latitude and considered toleration that the 230 million-some non-gun-owners and the 296 million-some non-NRA-members in this country has allowed your boys-with-bigger-toys ilk) that the public outcry will be so loud that politicians of all stripes will be forcing some really draconian restricions (ala Australia, and other countries) upon you.
If you really don't want to see that day, you better get on board now and help — it's "your rights" that you're risking pissing away (by failing to attach any responsibilities to your small group gamer-wannabe-mercenaries).
Really, Moderatus, it's way past time to do the math, and to give up your toadying support of every childish thing . . .
No 30-round clips? What are you going to do when the end times come and you have to shoot your way into heaven?
I'd ask ,as a combat veteran,why anyone would need even 15 rounds. The British, Germans, and Russians all assaulted everything they felt needed assaulted in two world wars with bolt action rifles carrying 5 round magazines. Even the Garand only carried 8. I'm a native Coloradan who spent most of his life in the state, especially on the Western slope . The very best hunter I ever knew used only Ruger number one falling block action single shot rifles. He was the sort of guy who could have stolen Mod's hair without moving Mod's hat.
Because freedom.
My husband, also a combat vet who grew up hunting, says the same things. In fact amost all the males in my extended family, a good percentage of them vets from WWII, Korea and Vietnam, own or owned guns and supported during their lifetimes or are still around today and supporting reasonable gun control measures such as this one.
There's a friend of ours who once had to take five shots at a bull elk, at under 100 yards, to bring him down. To this day, he's mocked as Machine Gun Kelly.
No it's not true of me, too, because the the two sets of facts are not comparable. Please read my comment again and see if you get the point I'm making about the huge disparity between the two on second reading.
Gessler's solution is an over the top draconian right trampling one for which a problem doesn't exist. The 72 bad actors who couldn't buy a gun are evidence that a problem does exist and that the very non-draconian, expanded checks that aren't harming anyone's rights are having some significant success in addressing it.
Are you complaining because the law doesn't provide enough enforcement against private sellers who flaunt the law?
Since I KNOW that one of those rejections was for a gun I sold through a licensed dealer and the person rejected was twice convicted for DV and our city has only 2800 people I'm pretty reassured of the efficacy
Correction: Simon Gonzales (the shooter in Castle Rock) back in 1999 did not murder his wife, but he did shoot and kill his 3 little daughters outside the Castle Rock police station. Prior to the shooting, he went to a gun dealer. While his 3 girls were playing outside, he purchased the weapon that he shot and killed them with. He was under a restraining order, which a CBI background check would have caught, but the 1999 legislature (in choosing to save money) turned background checks over to the FBI. Testimony to the lege had warned not to do that (although the committee members told the paper "We didn't know this could happen."). FBI databases had no record of the restraining order, so the 3 beautiful Gonzales girls died.
To his credit, Republican Governor Bill Owens soon thereafter reinstated CBI checks by executive order. The legislature made it the law in 2000. The bill was sponsored by moderate Republicans (Sen. Owens and Rep. Tool), a species that unfortunately seems to be extinct in today's state legislature.
About the 40%: Generally the 40% figure is used to describe the portion of firearms purchases that are private for the entire United States. In Colorado it was expected to be a lower figure because we already do background checks at gun shows. In 2000 after the Columbine massacre, voters approved Closing the Gun Show Loophole by a 70% – 30% vote. Three of the four guns used at Columbine were purchased at a gun show.
Before July 1st in Colorado, if a person failed a background check, they could merely go online (there are plenty of sites, even the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners used to run one) or find a classified advertisement….and voila….the criminal or domestic violence abuser could arm himself or herself rather rapidly with about anything her or she wanted without ANYONE ASKING ANY QUESTIONS.
As of July 1st, if a person fails the background check at a store, at the gun show or in a private sale, there is NO WHERE he or she can readily go to get firearms. All sales are checked.
Thank you Colorado legislature for making us all safer! We don't need to be arming criminals and spouse abusers. We do need background checks upon each and every firearms purchase or transfer!!!!
Thanks for the valuable background information. We've updated the post.
No one would argue that this was a tragedy. Mark Waller is no cold hearted man, and I think you know that Pols. This is a question of cost/benefit to both the state and law abiding citizens. If we justified every legislation by the possibility of "saving one life," we would have a lot of terrible laws. No one wants to see more gun crime, all we're saying is you can't solve the problems that cause violence by getting rid of guns.
Nobody's "trying to get rid of guns".
Think before you post, as there's no movement by anyone anywhere attempting to "get rid of guns".
None of the 5 laws passed this year "get rifd of guns".
Or tell me where that's happening in Colorado or anywhere else.
Please. The gunzo rhetoric's ridiculous.
Propose an alternative way to limit gun crime, death and violence.
The only alternatives presented by the gunz for everyone crowd in the recent era are no rules, no laws, no fees, no interference is the only possible approach. Which almost everyone knows is crap.
Guns are not hammers.Guns are not spray paint. Guns are not cars.
Guns are what they are, designed to do what they do.
What do you propose for appropriate regulaiton?
Crickets — what else would you expect?
You were asking the Modster, and the magazine limit was too hard won to give up, but if I were looking for good gun regulation it would be this: Screw up once with a gun (threat or harm to person, place, or animal), and you don't get your gun back. Ever.
So no Zimmerman gun, no Cheney gun, no Fort Hood shooter gun, no Navy Yard shoot-up -his-rental gun, no carry-a-gun-to-presidential-speech gun, no threats to shoot sitting legislators. No domestic violence offender guns, no gangster guns.
If your kid or someone is injured by accident because you couldn't be bothered to lock up your gun, you lose all of them. Outside of legitimate licensed hunting, you shoot a dog or cat for fun, you lose your firearm privileges.
I guess you could say the same thing for other deadly weapons, including cars, but this is where I'd start with guns.
That is a very reasonable point of view, mama. If we focus on behavior and hold people accountable with real consequences for that behavior, we might start making some progress.