President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 20, 2013 09:27 AM UTC

Background Checks, Magazine Limit Signed Into Law

  • 187 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

PM UPDATE: Gov. John Hickenlooper issues a signing statement on House Bill 1224, the magazine limit bill, intended to clear up misinformation about its effects from the long debate. Key excerpt:

In signing HB13-1224, we acknowledge that some have expressed concerns about the vagueness of the law’s definition of “large-capacity magazine.” 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. [Pols emphasis] And when a Colorado-based magazine manufacturer came to us to share their concerns about the vagueness of the definition of “large-capacity magazine” contained in the original version of the bill, we worked with the bill’s sponsors to fine-tune the definition to make it more precise.

We also have heard concerns about the requirement in the law that a person who owns a large-capacity magazine prior to the law’s enactment may legally possess that magazine only as long as he or she “maintains continuous possession” of it. We do not believe a reasonable interpretation of the law means that a person must maintain continuous “physical” possession of these items. Responsible maintenance and handling of magazines obviously contemplates that gun owners may allow others to physically hold and handle them under appropriate circumstances. We are confident that law enforcement and the courts will interpret the statute so as to effectuate the lawful use and care of these devices.

In considering the language of HB13-1224, we have consulted with the Office of the Attorney General and we concur with its advice that the large-capacity magazine ban should be construed narrowly to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. We have signed HB13-1224 into law based on the understanding that it will be interpreted and applied narrowly and consistently with these important constitutional provisions.

—–

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

During a press conference that followed the bill signing, Hickenlooper said that his office has also drafted a signing statement to clarify how the magazine ban should be interpreted.

“I was ambivalent on this to a degree,” Hickenlooper said, noting the inconvenience for law-abiding gun owners. “But in the end, these high-capacity magazines turn killers into killing machines. I think the potential for damage seems to outweigh the inconvenience.”

…“Lawmakers looked at several bills, and some of them didn’t stand up to the rigorous discussion,” Hickenlooper said, noting that legislation that sought to ban concealed weapons on college campuses was killed.

—–

UPDATE #2: NBC News with GOP reaction:

“We’re all in shock here,” state Senator Greg Brophy, a Republican, said on Wednesday. “It turns out this guy who everybody thought was a moderate Democrat is actually a gun-control governor.”

“I think the governor will be replaced by someone who has Colorado values instead of New York City values,” Brophy said. “If Republicans are returned to control we will repeal these bills immediately.”

122429signingPhoto via AP's Ivan Moreno

Updates coming; press conference scheduled for 10:30AM.

mausertweet

Tweet
Share

Comments

187 thoughts on “Background Checks, Magazine Limit Signed Into Law”

    1. Not for the very large majority of Colorado citizens who are  pleased and supportive and who elected the state legislature who passed the laws and the Governor who signed them, Koch.  For us, it's a very good day and one that was arrived at in full accordance with the American way of government and without any violation of constitutional rights according to precedents long established by all interpretation to date of our second amendment rights by our courts.

    2. I would think, with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth you folks have done since 2008, you'd have grown up a little by now. I guess you're still cryin'.

      1. I know, Gray.

        Koch's only now grasping the reality of the dangers out there, what with the need to reload after 15 rounds. (Actually 13, as you NEVER load a spring loaded mag to max).

        Scenario, while on the walk, a government vehicle goes by. The mental briefing pre-walk has koch now only able to fire 13 rounds instead of 28.

        Wait a minute, why was koch going to fire on the vehicle in the first place?

        Oh, that's right, he talked to nock.

        1. Well, I kind of lack the necessary body parts to pull that one off.  

          My point here really goes the selectivity of the dems' social liberalism.  They believe you should be allowed to smoke pot if you are not hurting anybody but then think its ok to regulate clip size even if you aren't hurting anybody.  Why is that not contradictory?

          Similarly, whatever happened to the idea of "choice" that the Dems espouse in the abortion context?  Why do they/you choose not to apply it where guns are concerned? 

          Genuinely curious here.  

          1. Genuinely curious has nothin' to do with it.

            You're jerkin' chains again.

            A woman's right to control her own destiny, to preside over her own health, to make decisions that impact her and her family, ultimitely our society, are separate and apart from bastardization of the 2nd Amendment.

            In your libertarian utopia, your definition of "freedom" is you gettin' a free ride at my expense.

            But that's off topic. Bottom line, 30 round magazines in assault weapons are not just an affront to practicality, but to reason as well.

            My grandson's right to go to the movies without getting shot trumps your right to excess. The public sees it, and thank God that the Democratic Legislature didn't fold.

            But you already knew that.

          2. If you really don't get why regulating the size of clips might reduce the death toll from gun violence, aske the parents of a  9 year old killed with the 33rd round in an incident that was brought to a close by ordinary bystanders as soon as the guy had to stop to reload.

            But, once agin, you have to resort to  philosophical opining about what you perceive as an equivilency between this discussion and a discussion on abortion. 

            Just one single solitary time I'd like to see you argue one single solitary issue on its own merits and nothing but its own merits.  I don't see supporters of sensible gun control having any problem doing that but absolutely none of the opponents who post here has managed to do that even once.

            I suspect that if any of you could, you would which indicates that your arguments are inherently weaker and you all know it. Either that or you have no idea how to apply cogent, coherent reasoning in the presentation of an argument, in which case I sure hope you aren't a trial lawyer.

            1. I'm not going to get into whether this will reduce or increase safety because I understand the studies to be mixed and I have not had time to get to the bottom of that aspect of this debate. 

              If you don't want to get to the philosophical inconsistency of the pot/abortion position you wish to take with the gun position that is your call.  

              1. The only inconsistency is relating women making private decisions about something that's not your business and 6 year old kids getting shot multiple times with an assault weapon.

                One's legal, one's not.

                1. Rocco, 
                  Not quite.  Even the Roe/Casey line of decisions acknowledges that certain abortion restrictions about abortion is permissible because at some juncture a fetus should not be less than a household pet in terms of rights. 

                  Additionally, nobody serious disputes that a public shooting is the public's business. That isn't the question.  The question instead is whether somebody who hasn't engaged in a shooting and who is legally competent should have the choice to peacefully own a magazine greater than that which now permitted under the new Colorado law.  If you feel they shouldn't because of the risk of violence commited by others, how do you distinguish that from alcohol and marijuana? 

              2. The fact that you don't seem to think that whether or not these measures would increase or decrease safety pretty much supports my point, Eliot.

                Since the Supreme Court has long established that some regulation of arms is consistent with the right set forth in the second amendment, the salient points for or against any particular gun control measures would be 1) whether or not you believe that they fall within the framework of  Supreme Court's interpretation of permissable regulations and 2) whether or not they are likley to achieve their stated goal of reducing gun violence within that framework.

                This reminds me of your non-reply replies to specifics in debates about the economy. You airily dismiss anything concrete that actually affects people's lives every day in favor of "philosophy". Never mind any of the real things your opponents point to.  Just hold up your little "Small Government" or "Limited Government" sign.  There. Done.

                That's "philosophy" to you. Real world facts couldn't matter less. How gross of us to consider anything so mundane, so messily corporeal, as our own every day lives or our parents' and childrens' chances at a decent one. What Philistines we are compared to you.

                Your continual need to invoke "philosophy" as an excuse for not bothering to directly address any opponent's points with facts or documented evidence of any kind, or to do any research on actual bills or actual studies makes meaningful debate impossible. 

                You wear intellectual laziness and lack of either knowledge or mental discipline as a badge of honor as one who is just too devoted to "philosophy" to be bothered with such material considerations as proving your point.  No, "philosophy" gives you the right to dismiss your opponents' arguments, no matter how carefully reasoned and supported by facts they may be, basically on the grounds that you just know wrong when you see it because of your superior "philosophy". Or perhaps "ideology".  Or maybe "religion". It's all pretty much of a piece.

                Like I said. Sure hope you aren't a trial lawyer. And I won't waste any more time trying to have a meaningful debate with someone who refuses to even try. Have fun with anyone who still wants to play with you, Eliot.  Bye.

          3. Please, if you want to discuss gun violence and applicable laws, then do so separately from the issue of pregnancy.  If by now you and your brethren still do not understand why a majority of Coloradans want improved prevention of gun slaughter in this state, then there is no hope for you. 

             

            1. Make it about pot then.  Bottom line is this – the guy who has a 30 bullet clip in a secured gun in his own home and who isn't hurting anybody isn't your business.  Just like the guy who is smoking pot in the basement of his own home without hurting anybody isn't your business. 

              1. Where's the part about anybody coming to take those assault weapons with the 28 round mags from yer home in the legislation?

                Did I miss it?

                Bottom line is…………come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                 

                  1. Why did you change the subject? Because the choice/gun safety comparison ain't cuttin' it for you.

                    But, the answer is yes if purchased before implementation. .Now, USING the 30 round mag is highly frowned upon.

                    Again, jerking peoples' chains is one thing. You should know better than to ask a question you don't know the answer to though.

                    I don't think you actually care about the gun safety legislation. There are nut cases like koch, PUtad, nock, etc. that are legit gun goons, but you're not one of them.

                    I think your deal is impressing us with your legal acumen, the old devil's advocate bullshit.

                    It ain't workin'.

              2. Exactly, @ElliotFladen.  Just be glad that once July 1st rolls around that no will die after 15th round is fired.  Oh right, these laws do nothing increase safety.

                  2. Depends on whether there is any defensible reason to support the law remaining in effect.  If not, repeal it.  If so, maybe repeal it anyway (defensible reason still might not outweigh liberty impairment).  

                    Along these lines I voted for Amd. 64 because I could see no defensible reason why Marijuana should remain illegal. 

                3. You don't know yet what will happen after the laws go into effect, Koch, and nobody ever said that these laws would prevent all deaths.  Both of your statements are without merit in any rational discussion.

                  It appears that between rightie radio and Fox TV, the ability of righties to have serious discussions instead of just regurgitating talking points has been pretty much destroyed.  Maybe that's another reason you keep losing.

                4. Too much Fladen.  Experiencing Fladen boring bulls**t overload. So pointless, so endless…  All systems shut-ting….. d—-o——w—-nnnnn…..zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…..

          4. Replying in a substantive and courteous manner, giving you the benefit of the doubt that what I perceive to be trolling is merely ignorance of law and precedent in these areas, compare the restrictions on magazine capacity, background checks, and availablity to domestic violence perpetrators to restrictions on abortion involving waiting periods, informed consent laws and restrictions of particular procedures, all of which have passed muster in judicial review.  Perhaps you've heard of the "undue burden" standard from Planned Parenthood v. Casey?  I'm sure it's taught in law school.

            So we're left with the alternatives that you're ignorant as fuck, or a horrible ugly troll.  You argue passionately against the latter, so it must be the former.

            2. DaftPunk, 
              Forgive me if I am mixing you up with somebody else as I have before, but wasn't it you who brought my then 16 month old daughter into a discussion?  And if I am correct, isn't it odd that you are now calling me a "horrible ugly troll" 

              Just asking 😉 

                2. See, there really isn't any point.  This is Eliot's idea of a response. And I completely agree.  Eliot is either too ignorant or too intellectually lazy or both to directly address challenging points. 

                  He just cries "philosophy" or "limited government" or the ever popular "abortion", brings up something else,  tries to change the direction to generalities about liberals (but he calls that "philosophy") or complains that, after deciding to post as himself, somebody made fun of his name choice for his daughter.

                  I'm sure all her fellow babies are teasing the hell out of her over her mention in ColPols. This must be very stressful for her. Not that anyone would have remembered it for more than 5 minutes if he didn't keep bringing it up and, by the way, how desperate to escape backing up his points does he have to be to keep using his  baby daughter as a weapon by bringing it up? 

                  But then with Eliot everything is about "philosophy" (not that I think he really understands what the word means) so the theory of an unfair way to use someone's daughter is way more important than the actuality of using her repeatedly to remind everybody why he is entitled to righteous indignation and also entitled to not address your points. Because we all know that's completely relevant, right?

                  I gave him the benefit of the doubt for as long as I could but he's such a buffoon, I give up.

                  1. No Bluecat – i'll respond to you – just not to DaftPunk as DaftPunk did something despicable (hoping I am not mixing usernames up again) in bringing my toddler into a discussion. 

                     

                    1. @ Elliot. First, YOU are the one that brought your daughter up today, no one else. Second, these gun issues, as well as future gun issues do not resemble in any way pot, alcohol or abortion. No one using pot or alcohol or having had or thinking of and abortion has ever massacred school children or movie goers and is not likely to. Now, the dude from North Carolina that planted the bomb at the Atlantic Olympics and other bombs at abortion clinics did have abortion on his mind

                    2. Gray,
                      I brought up DaftPunk bring her up for a simple reason – to remind him why I don't respond to his stuff.  Very little in online debate irritates me but what he did crosses that line. 

                    3. (as for your other points Gray, has anybody using Marijauna/Alcohol ever committed a crime or driven under the influence? sure.  should we restrict everybody's rights on that basis? no.  

                      similarly for abortion, every time an abortion occurs something living is being killed.  that doesn't mean you ban all abortion, but it does mean if you choose not it is for some due to the paramount nature of a "choice" type argument – i.e. the choice to control one's body if one is interfering with a person. with guns, unlike abortion, one can peacefully own the same without actually hurting somebody.  which means the CHOICE to own a gun with a high ammo clip should be even more respected than the CHOICE to have an abortion).

                    1. And the whole thing would have been dropped long ago if it weren't for Elliot constantly bringing it up.  I suppose he could keep bringing it up and making sure no one ever forgets until she's old enough to get teased about it if he really sticks with it and of course it will still be DPs fault in Elliot's always confused, illogical mind.

                  2. Aristotle – thank you and Gray – I think you have a point here too.  In the future I'll just be ambiguous as to why I'm not responding to DaftPunk unless people press for the reason (I'll just say he/she brought family members into a discussion or something like that). 

                    2. Here's a clue: Not responding would involve not touching the mouse or keyboard.

                      We've been over this before, and it's not worth rehashing.  I haven't mentioned your poor choice in children's names in over a month, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.  However, if you invite us to look at your Facebook page and I see that you've named your subsequent children Ayn Rand Fladen and Adolf Hitler Fladen, I will continue to mock your poor decision making.

                      Bear in mind that this has no bearing on the intrinsic qualities of your offspring.  I'm sure your daughter is bright, charming and attractive. Were I to meet her I'd pat her on the head and say "aren't you a dear?", but I'd ask you and your "girl", "what the hell were you thinking?"

                      You like to go your crybaby route about this every time I call you a troll, as if there were some equivalence. There isn't. You are a troll, I am a playground bully.  Let me explain the difference.

                      Bullies like to exploit the insecurities of the new or different kid.  You are both. A smart kid who is either keeps a low profile and tries to make friends before getting comfortable enough to show his colors.  You chose to go full on obnoxious from the get go, tweaking the cool kids.  The cool kids here think Ayn Rand is a bad writer of an odious philosophy.  Pointing out that you love that writer and that philosophy so much to make the poor decision to name your child after one of her heroines is a way of saying you're never going to be one of the cool kids.

                      Now, in the playground, when confronted by bullies, crying to the teacher "Johnny's being mean to me" is rarely successful.  Confronting the bullies with the courage of your convictions is a better approach.  Tell us why you admire Rand's philosophy.  Tell us what it is about Dagny Taggart you so admire as to name your daughter after her.  Maybe we'd appreciate your arguments if not their conclusions.

                      You have no such courage.  Rocco has asked you to stake a position on Objectivism and its legislative embodiment in the Ryan budget, but you cower, hiding behind your daughter as a "human shield" as he put it, though this has nothing to do with her and everything to do with you.  Now I'm not proud of bullying you, but it's a conscious choice I've made in response to your disrespectful manner of debate.

                      You are a troll, because a troll asks peripherally related, inflammatory, rhetorical questions to which he knows the answer, so as to take the conversation off-topic.  Congratulations!  You've taken a thread about gun control and ~80% of the posts are about your stupid comparison to abortion, instead of about a Democratic governor of a western state with a proud independent streak and a love of guns enacting the first significant gun control measure since Sandy Hook.  Well trolled!

                      As for the substance of your comparison on the issue of "choice", for someone who purports to be pro-choice, you display a profound ignorance of what that means.

                      In political messaging, "Pro" sells better than "Anti."  The pro-choice side is not pro-abortion as the pro-forced childbearing side would have it, it is pro-women making their own decisions about their bodies absent the interference of meddling government or religious busybodies.  That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so well, so it's been distilled to "Pro-Choice."  Long ago I asked the then president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, why beat around the bush and not be explicit in the support of abortion rights?  She told me that it also encompassed birth control and the radical notion that women should be able to choose when and how to bear children so as to be in full control of their lives and equal participants in civil life.  Over the years, the younger generation has lost the meaning of what "choice" means, and Planned Parenthood has moved away from such simplistic labels (which your simplistic analogy exemplifies perfectly)  toward a more empathetic model of not understanding what it means to be facing these issues.

                      The bottom line is that freedom means that people should possess the right to control what happens to their bodies.  Even as a man, who has never known the fear a late period or unplanned pregnancy can bring, if you were a decent human being you would appreciate the difference between that concern and a choice of consumer products.

                    3. DAFTPUNK – Here's a clue – a limited response to you indicating you are a jerk who drags family members into discussions is even more effective.  Especially when you saw nothing wrong with what you did.  As such that is all what you are going to get from me. 

                    4. No, that's not it.

                      You're the one that constantly brings it up.

                      But, it's as cover fire when somebody has your short hairs in the vice and you want out. You have done it time and again.

                      The "poor me" bit.

                      You're getting your ass kicked here on a daily basis. You float between being an ayn rand acolyte and condemning her. You pound your fist for 6 hour old DNA to be given the rights of a delivered child, then deny you did it. (You can prove me wrong about caring about children by telling me you've adopted).

                      You seem to hold no values, other than to take the opposite position as a habit.

                      Daft Punk figured you out a long time ago. You know it, and you're trying to discreit her.

                      Bluecat accurately points out you never answer a challenge, you just "lawyer up" and avoid legitimite points.

                      Give it a rest, or be a productive part of the debate.

                      Now, get that list of "liberty impairments" or quit wasting peoples' time.

                      Do it now.

                    5. Rocco,
                      Except that I will answer many other people.  Just not DaftPunk (and occassionally not you either as your arguments consist mostly of personal attacks, not substantive points).  Which undercuts your entire argument.  

                      Try again.

                    6. Another Fladen reading comprehension fail:

                      Did you notice the part where I said I wasn't proud of my behavior?  You won't even admit you're trolling, when everyone here sees it.

                      p.s. Here's another reading comprehension fail from your link:

                      In the post-Lochner era, the Supreme Court has applied a lower standard of review (rational basis test) when confronting restrictions on economic liberty, but a higher standard in reviewing legislation impinging on personal liberties, especially the right to privacy.

                       

                    7. @ElliotFladen: My first response lately:

                      Here's a clue: Not responding would involve not touching the mouse or keyboard.

                      We've been over this before, and it's not worth rehashing.  I haven't mentioned your poor choice in children's names in over a month, you're the one who keeps bringing it up.  However, if you invite us to look at your Facebook page and I see that you've named your subsequent children Ayn Rand Fladen and Adolf Hitler Fladen, I will continue to mock your poor decision making.

                      Bear in mind that this has no bearing on the intrinsic qualities of your offspring.  I'm sure your daughter is bright, charming and attractive. Were I to meet her I'd pat her on the head and say "aren't you a dear?", but I'd ask you and your "girl", "what the hell were you thinking?"

                      You like to go your crybaby route about this every time I call you a troll, as if there were some equivalence. There isn't. You are a troll, I am a playground bully.  Let me explain the difference.

                      Bullies like to exploit the insecurities of the new or different kid.  You are both. A smart kid who is either keeps a low profile and tries to make friends before getting comfortable enough to show his colors.  You chose to go full on obnoxious from the get go, tweaking the cool kids.  The cool kids here think Ayn Rand is a bad writer of an odious philosophy.  Pointing out that you love that writer and that philosophy so much to make the poor decision to name your child after one of her heroines is a way of saying you're never going to be one of the cool kids.

                      Now, in the playground, when confronted by bullies, crying to the teacher "Johnny's being mean to me" is rarely successful.  Confronting the bullies with the courage of your convictions is a better approach.  Tell us why you admire Rand's philosophy.  Tell us what it is about Dagny Taggart you so admire as to name your daughter after her.  Maybe we'd appreciate your arguments if not their conclusions.

                      You have no such courage.  Rocco has asked you to stake a position on Objectivism and its legislative embodiment in the Ryan budget, but you cower, hiding behind your daughter as a "human shield" as he put it, though this has nothing to do with her and everything to do with you.  Now I'm not proud of bullying you, but it's a conscious choice I've made in response to your disrespectful manner of debate.

                      You are a troll, because a troll asks peripherally related, inflammatory, rhetorical questions to which he knows the answer, so as to take the conversation off-topic.  Congratulations!  You've taken a thread about gun control and ~80% of the posts are about your stupid comparison to abortion, instead of about a Democratic governor of a western state with a proud independent streak and a love of guns enacting the first significant gun control measure since Sandy Hook.  Well trolled!

                      As for the substance of your comparison on the issue of "choice", for someone who purports to be pro-choice, you display a profound ignorance of what that means.

                      In political messaging, "Pro" sells better than "Anti."  The pro-choice side is not pro-abortion as the pro-forced childbearing side would have it, it is pro-women making their own decisions about their bodies absent the interference of meddling government or religious busybodies.  That doesn't fit on a bumper sticker so well, so it's been distilled to "Pro-Choice."  Long ago I asked the then president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, why beat around the bush and not be explicit in the support of abortion rights?  She told me that it also encompassed birth control and the radical notion that women should be able to choose when and how to bear children so as to be in full control of their lives and equal participants in civil life.  Over the years, the younger generation has lost the meaning of what "choice" means, and Planned Parenthood has moved away from such simplistic labels (which your simplistic analogy exemplifies perfectly)  toward a more empathetic model of not understanding what it means to be facing these issues.

                      The bottom line is that freedom means that people should possess the right to control what happens to their bodies.  Even as a man, who has never known the fear a late period or unplanned pregnancy can bring, if you were a decent human being you would appreciate the difference between that concern and a choice of consumer products.

                      (Since you won't respond to DP's very valid hounding, please respond to mine.)

                    8. GL,
                      Not going to respond to your reposting of DaftPunk's vitriolic and insult laden post.  If you have a substantive question on this topic feel free to ask me.  That post doesn't count. 

            1. Well, one is in the Constitution….

              (and yes, I understand that the Second amendment is not absolute…but at least it is there in the first place)

              1. Do you read the US Constitution to include a right to privacy?

                Not specifically named in my copy – does it exist?

                According to the same Constitution do I have the right to wear shoes? If so, any kind I want?  Again, not a specifically named right.

                When you're head comes back to where we both live and breath, here's the point: no serious American argues that the 2nd Amendment is unlimited.

                We the people do not have the right to nuclear weapons. Rocket propelled grenades.  Laser guided missiles. Surface to air missiles. And liteerally hundreds or thousands of other arms (weapons).

                So stick with the point- are these limitations Constitutional or not?  If not- why not?

                I believe they are.

                And that a right of privacy is inherent in the penumbra. ANd that liertarians are just what ElRushbo says they are- just too weak to stand up and be conservative R's.

                    1. MADCO – this is the point – and the point that Gerald Gunther of Stanford law school used to stress (per my recollections Dean Kathleen Sullivan's lectures).  If you want to have an expansive reading of substantive due process to sustain Roe v. Wade you need to acknowledge the Lochner decision.  But you progressives don't want to go there because you only want privacy in some things (like abortion) but not others (voluntary business transactions/contracting).  Problem you have is there isn't an honest way of distinguishing the two.  

                       

                    2. ElliotF- and what does Lochner have to do with the right to keep and bear arms? Or more to the POINT: the right to keep and bear multi round magazines, with no back ground check, and no fee for background check. Etc.

                    3. It is related to Roe v. Wade – you asked if I 

                      read the US Constitution to include a right to privacy? 

                      Modern legal academia's disapproval of Lochner relates to that issue.   

                    4. riiight…so I see you taking me (us) off the point of the legislation just signed.  Which has nothing to do with Roe.

                      But until you show a link between the right to privacy and a women's right to choose and th elaws related thereto, and the 2nd Amendment – I'v got nothing more to say.

                       

                      (When the R's and L's win and repeal the gun laws passed today, and restrict a right to choose in the process- we can talk.)

                    5. I raised a comparison, you raised a tangential point to my comparison and then I responded to said tangential point. 

          6. SEE EF

             

            In this country, we are ultimately ruled by the Constitution that says gun possession is protected by the 2nd amendment, but the government has a right to regulate their use.  The Constitution also says that women have a right to have an abortion, but the government has the right to regulate that after the first trimester. 

            Now, if you don't want to accept our constitution, then you should click your little heels and go back to where ever you came from.

            1. Dwyer,
              Actually the Constitution says nothing about abortion.  I think you are referring to substantive due process which was, if you know its history, once used to strike down wage/hour laws (Lochner).

              If you want to rely on substantive due process all I ask is that you be consistent and embrace Lochner. 

              3. @EF

                You perserverate on this Lochner case and assume that somehow it trumps decisions of SCOTUS.  It doesn't.

                This thread is almost identical to one you wrote months ago.

                We should leave you alone to persue your obsession.

      3. @Elliot — Others have provided excellent, mature replies above.  But maybe a simple (simplistic) analogy to illustrate the difference between a woman's right to choose, and the altogether different concept of public safety, will set the concept firmly in your head:

        Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.  If, however, you wish to swing your fist to the tip of your nose without stopping, then knock your self out (bad pun intended).

        1. Except with abortion the argument is that we are treating beings with human DNA as worse than household pets, so your fist doesn't really stop "at the tip of your nose"…while with guns the guy who has a 30 bullet clip secured in his home and isn't hurting anybody DID have his fist stop at (or way, way before) the "tip of your nose" per your analogy. 

          2. Yeah…. your "Personhood" button is showing again.

            I don't particularly mind your positions, Elliot, you've got the right to them. I just wish you had the cojones to actually commit to any of them, instead of this cowardly, disingenuos "philosophical argument" BS.

            1. Curmudgeon, 
              I don't support Personhood and have made many enemies (or at least angry people) in GOP circles by publicly opposing it in a very frequent manner. Its how I became friends with PCG.  Try again. 

              1. Of course you have. That's why you argue their stance at every opportunity. Do you actually think anyone here buys your "just curious" or "just for the sake of argument" BS?   Someone has to be a lot smoother and a lot smarter to get away with talking out of both sides of their mouth.

                You fail.

                1. Curmudgeon – 
                  I know this might come as a shocker, but just because you disagree with somebody does not mean they don't have a point.  I have had very strong disagreements with the Personhood crowd most of which should be public (to my likely detriment should I ever rejoin the GOP and run for office).  However, I can still see that they have some decent arguments even though I don't agree with them. 

                  I think you should try to learn from the same notion. 

                  1. Eliot,

                    Should you ever run for office, it'll be pretty amusing watching you try to debate while hiding behind a toddler and shrieking, "Don't bring her into this, you monsters!!!"

                2. He claims he doesn't support personhood, Curmudgeon.  We should take him at his word.  After all,  considering the things he's said about his anti-choice convictions, supporting personhood would be logical and logic is something I've yet to see any evidence of in Elliot's confused, disorganized meandering evasions. I've got to say I'm really impressed, though, that someone so challenged in tems of ability to form and express  anything resembling cogent thoughts managed to become a lawyer.  Is there affirmative action for the reasoning impaired?

                  1. Bluecat, 

                    Here should be enough threads for you on the Personhood issue:

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/445283352200915

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/10100163951940793

                    https://www.facebook.com/notes/elliot-fladen/judaism-does-not-support-personhood-abortion-context/260254363991025

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/10100117985198513

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/10100107001295343

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/979607576403

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/172563246164559

                    https://www.facebook.com/ElliotFladen/posts/931801624913

                    That should be enough for you.  There are a lot more. 

                     

              2. Your problem is that you can't believe that the American public can have idas that you think are contridictory or even are contradictory.  And this is the heart of the matter for the "Republican" Party today.  They are stuck on a rigid sense of rules that make sense to them.  The public doesn't believe in the rules and certainly doesn't believe that they should be rigid.  In fact, the public embraces contradiction.  So, yes, the public and I are both contradictory.  We support both abortion rights and the limitation of gun rights.  Get over yourself.  By the way, abortion rights are limited too.  Have you ever read Roe?  You may not like the limits placed in Roe, but they are there, just as with every other constitutional right.

          3. Jeez Elliot, can your logic get any more pathetic?

            You, a libertarian, arguing against freedom of choice on matters affecting a woman's health and their own body, vs. the phony "Ma, they're takin' my guns away!" argument? Show me where the law confiscates anyone's 30 round clip?

            On second thought, nevermind.  I stopped caring what you think about these issues.

             

             

            1. You mean you haven't noticed that Elliot runs from being forced to use logicas if it were a demon from the mouth of hell?  That's why he has never, not once , directly addressed any point I've ever made in a discussion with him and would rather turn everything into generalities.  He dresses them up by insisting it's "philosophy".

              For one thing, nobody is arguing that we have the right  to impose gun regulations because we deny gunowners have a right  to privacy. Nobody. I haven't heard this particular argument form anyone on either side. And no wonder. It's nonsense.

              Elliot must be incapable of defending his view logically or I'm sure he wouldn't be so desperate to do anything but and talk about anything other than the measures themselves.  This latest privacy argument is simply the only way he can make a connection with abortion and a tortured connection it is. Even LaPierre makes more sense than that.

              Once again, I've got to believe he isn't a trial lawyer. If so I feel really really sorry for anyone relying on him to argue a case in court.

              1. Bluecat, you seem to think that restricting law-abiding citizens from CHOOSING to own a high mag clip is acceptable because of the remote possibility that one person might use it to hurt another.  At the same time you seem to think it is unacceptable to bar people from owning alcohol/pot even when there is a remote possibility that one user of the same might hurt another while under its influence.  And even more, you thik it is unaccpetable to ban abortion when it necessarily results in the termination (not just hurting) of a living thing because it restricts choice. 

                What is odd is you can't seem to find a single inconsistency in your positions when they are jumping off the page. 

                1. in the termination (not just hurting) of a living thing because it restricts choice.

                  Have you ever seriously considered the living horror experienced by an unwanted child? Can you even begin to understand the lifetime of misery to which you condemn a fertilized egg by insisting that a woman who is unprepared, unwilling, or unable to provide a decent life for a child actually allow that zygote to become a child born into crushing poverty…or into dysfunctional, punitive, life situation?

                  You seem to think that the only question is some "philosophical" equation based on your academic misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution.

                  The toddler you so self righteously defend is very lucky to have a parent who obviously loves and cares for it. It enjoys a distinction you are clearly too dense to comprehend.

                  I was the director of a Boys Club of America many years ago…I also happened to have grown up within the bleak, painful poverty of eastern Kentucky in the 50s and 60s.

                  Both experiences have given me an insight into the lifetime of misery and pain that await a child born into a world that doesn't want it, or is unprepared to care for it. You contend that it is cruel to abort a fetus. I am here to tell you that you are unbelievably short sighted.

                  Cruelty can be manifested in many ways. To be unwillingly thrust into a life of abuse, neglect, and hopelessness is unspeakably cruel. You and your "conservative" (yeah, right) brethren can be counted on to demand that a zygote be allowed to become a child with no thought or consideration to the lifetime of misery that may await that child. And you certainly have no sense of reponsibility for that child you demand must be born. And please don't insult us with some pathetic comment about adoption..adoption is usually good when it happens, but it is not a comprehensive solution.

                  I hope you will someday learn that you are a blind idealogue who cannot see beyond your own simple-minded prejudices…

                  You have a great deal more to learn than you realize.

                   

                   

                  1. It's hopeless, Duke. Of course this isn't a choice issue except in the sense so general as to be meaningless that everything we do involves choices.

                    The Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd amendment as allowing for regulation of fire arms isn't about choice.  It's about the right to bear arms and the extent to which that right may be limited as to types of arms and other restrictions. 

                    Trying to make a connection between that and the Roe v Wade decision which is in fact specifically about a woman's right to choose is something everyone but Elliot rightly finds inane. I suppose he thinks laws against stealing or requirements to register your vehicles are about about the thiefs or car owners freedom of choice, too.

                    I even know what his inane reply to that would be if he made one.  He'd completely miss the point that I'm posing examples of how those laws are no more or less about the right to choose than gun regulations and would instead spout something about the constitution not including the right to own cars or steal things. And his response to that would be something about how he takes the constitution seriously if I don't and he's not just spouting but making an important point.

                    He's quite hopeless. I give up.  Besides I've just had the same discussion with the same responses that I'd have with Elliot without bothering to involve him at all..

                  2. Did I say I was against abortion on this thread? No, I did not.  I simply have been using it (along with alcohol and pot) to point out an inconsistency in the logic of many commenters' here. 

                2. Sigh…..as usual not all relevant to a word I said.  You never address my points directly and often have the nerve to assign homework even though you feel no obligation to do  much of your own. 

                  How on earth did someone with such reading comprehension problems manage to get a decent  enough SAT score?  Never mind. Just musing.  Not a real question. Please play with someone else for a while.  A long while.

      4. Over 7,000 aborted lives lost in their prime in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s astounding how the pro-life, pro-gun folks don’t care about these lives after they’re born. These 7,000 certainly lost their rights to enjoy the Bill of Rights and all it’s amendments, including the second. Of course, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” found in the United States Declaration of Independence……lost that right, too. For what? Trillions of dollars lost. Millions of Americans would walk to DC on their knees to have that money back in the treaury, creating jobs, improving our country in thousands of ways. No, it’s more important passing laws that allow big intrusive government inside women and allowing THEM the FREEDOM of controlling their own bodies.

        Insanity is thy name Republicans, and whomever else doesn’t see the insanity.

         

         

        1. Yep!

          Where's that "good old rock ribbed sense of fair play" pinkos and libertarians put out there when it comes to the filibuster in the Senate and the refusal to bring to the floor in the House of the legislation to make sure Veterans and thier families get the benifits the bush administration promised them post 9/11?

          You know, when most people were wetting their pants, terrified of Bin Laden, they signed up to fix it.

          Now, the world according to draft dodgers mcconnell and boehner?

          6 hour old DNA gets more respect that a wounded warrior.

          That's republican/libertarian dogma.

          1. 6 hour old DNA gets more respect that a wounded warrior.

             

            That's not really fair.

            GOTP gives lots of things more respect than veterans in need.  Terry Schiavo. Scooter Libby. just to name two

          2. Balderdash. Eliott is a Libertarian like I'm a curvy blonde coed from a small MidWestern college, who indulges in nightly pillow fights with her 3 suitemates…

            It's just something I claim to be online, when the truth is much less pleasant.

          3. And not even logical dogma at that.  If the point is to save money for the government, then the government ought to be paying for all contracteption and all abortions.  That saves lots of money.  Oh, sorry, I forgot, they don't really care about saving money.

            1. Well if they cared about abortions they'd be all for making safe and effective birth control as widely available as possible.  Especially since they don't believe in spending anything to support mothers and children after the children are born and instantly transformed into lazy greedy" takers". If you're not a fetus anymore, you're pretty much on your own in their "philosophy".

              Apparently the idea of somebody enjoying sex without having children, never mind that not having children you can't afford is the responsible thing to do, really spoils their day.

              1. Bluecat, I'm not complaining about abortion here.  I'm complaining about your inconsistency in supporting choice in abortion/pot/alcohol but denying choice in guns.  That is all. 

                  1. Ooo… I've got some more.  How can I support a woman's right to choose but not a thief's right to choose to steal or a food company's right to choose to sell tainted food? 

                    Maybe because a woman's right to choose abortion is a recognized, protected right while a the right to steal, sell tainted food or break gun laws that have been passed and found constitutional are not protected rights.

                    Incidentally, I don't know how Fladen would know what I think about legalizing pot. But having nothing on which to base a confidently held belief has clearly never presented much of a speed bump to him. Once again, I'm left hoping the guy's not a trial lawyer.

                    1. When a thief steals he hurts another person.  When a company sells tainted food it creates a tort.  And when an abortion is done it terminates the life of an organism.  

                      However, if somebody has a high mag clip in my house under lock and key, who exactly is harmed? 

                    2. EF- so if there's no actual or current "harm" then there can be no law?

                       

                      I own a rocket propelled grenade launcher and 500 greandes. Stored safely in my garage.  Who is  harmed?

                       

                      Hell- i have a nuclear weapon stored off site in a bunker. No harm, right?

                      This is a ridiculous argument. Par.

                      Roughly equivalent to saying even though I shouted Fire! in the movie house, no one was actually hurt, just scared, so …no problem.

                    3. Except we don't have nuclear weapons being outlawed here.  We have a high magazine clip.  

                       

                  1. Can the availability of pot/alcohol lead to harming kids?  

                    Can abortion result in the death of an organism? 

                    Yes to both.  That said many on this page support allowing people access to the same even with the above effects taken into account (or specifically intended in case of abortion).  I'm not criticizing that support here. 

                    Instead, I'm criticizing the decision that, once one has decided to give such support to choice in the context of abortion/alcohol/pot that they then wish to deny choice in case of guns (specifically for law abiding citizens to have the right to possess clips of more than 15 rounds) – especially when such denial of choice is based on the same sort of protection of isolated instances of harm that is not dispositive for said people in the alcohol/abortion/pot context. 

                    1. "Death of an organism"? That's an interesting way to put it, especially since may ways of causing death to organisms are perfectly legal. I caused death to dozens, maybe hundreds of organisms last summer when I sprayed a wasp nest.

                      If we change that to the anti-choice movements preferred phrasing and say that abortion murders a baby, you're a bit more on the mark. But of course the definition of "baby" has always been an incredible stretch (zygotes and first trimester fetuses both look little like babies and are not viable outside the mother's womb), which is why it's not universally accepted the way, say, that saying "guns are deadly" is.

                      Ultimately, the choice of abortion falls under the realm of women's reproductive rights. Most anti-choice pols are also against sex education (except for "abstinence only," which typically leads to greater instances of teen pregnancy), access to contraception, and giving pharmacists the legal right to not fulfill their duty and deny certain prescriptions. None of it having anything to do with saving a fetus.

                      Pot and alcohol are already legally restricted from being available to kids. Comparing guns to them does more to support the case FOR restrictions on firearms, not against.

                      Choice doesn't enter much into it. I can't obtain certain liquor drinks here in Colorado. I learned of a certain rum about two years ago and researched it's availability. Turns out they only export to certain select states and don't do mailorder. Now, AFAIK that was their business decision and not a legal restriction, but states <i>do</i> engage in protectionism sometimes. Perhaps there's a vodka or whiskey* I simply won't be able to get here, either.

                      The point being, there are already choice restrictions on alcohol, and not only that but almost any consumer item you can name. Back when DVD players came out, you could only get "region free" players (those that could play all DVDs regardless of region coding) from abroad for a short while before they banned their import.

                      Pot and alcohol aren't so much about choice. Besides the myriad options of kinds and brands of liquor, pot is known to grow in many different varieties. Perhaps some aren't going to be available anywhere. Choices are limited.

                      * Naming two beverages that actually are distilled in Colorado. I think rum can only be made in tropical zones.

                    2. Aristotle,
                      Thank you for your thoughtful reply,

                      Yes there are/will likely be laws on the books that restrict when you can use alcohol and pot (can drink/use drive).  However, a law on usage of a high cap mag (can't use against people) would be fine for very obvious reasons. 

                      That isn't what was done here – the high cap mag wasn't banned for small limited uses – it was banned completely (unless grandfathering comes into play).  It would be akin to saying you can't buy any alcohol over 20 proof because it is might be more likely to cause a non-law abiding person to break the law and drive drunk.*  Or you can't buy anything other than swag because it would be more likely to get you in an accident.  You wouldn't stand for that in the alcohol/pot contexts, so why do you stand for that here?

                      As for abortion, you are choosing to place reproductive rights above the life of an organism which necessarily will die.  I'm not criticizing that decision here.  Instead I'm simply finding it curious that, given your indifference to causing death to an organism when rights are invovled, you won't put bill of rights acknowledged rights (not getting into reasonable restrictions) ahead of speculative and unproven safety issues. 

                      *Everclear and other types of hard liquor are available, I believe, in Colorado.  Thus while I am uncertain of the details of your rum example I think my comparison still holds up quite well. 

                    3. That's because I don't see any infringement of rights. Guns are still legal, as are the magazines that store their ammunition. Just not a high capacity one, which has a proven ability assisting mass murderers kill a greater number of individuals.

                      Anyway, the point of the rum example was that my choices are restricted. Gun buyers are going to find their choices limited, too, but like me, they'll live through it with their actual freedom intact.

        1. I'm becoming convinced that libertarians are filled with greed and fear. They mask this with Randian objectivism. Then, when they become old or otherwise decrepit they become dependent on the state

          1. They really aren't even Libertarians.  They just like to think of themselves as being big liberty lovers.  Their goddess Ayn Rand would consider most of them a bunch of silly prudes.

                  1. Many good philosophies/religions are based on anecdotes/stories.  See Plato's Republic (Glaucon's ring) or the Bible as two examples off the top of my head. 

                    1. I realize you're immune to logic or reason while trying to make arguments, but equating Green Eggs and Ham with the New Testament probably isn't going to serve you well, come Primary time……

                    2. Sort of like citing Rawls in primary time.  Never suggested that somebody do that (or get into the "veil of ignorance" – instead simply undercutting your apparent attempt to demean all of Rand's works as merely works aimed at adolescents. 

                    1. Of course I know that cars are not mentioned in the Constitution so no one has to bring that in. But, remember back when catalytic converters were put on cars and we all converted to unleaded gas? Remember all the stupid folks you knew who spoke of "choice" and that some even destroyed their catalutic converters by poking holes in them to get even with the govt for telling them they had to use unleaded?

                    1. Ari, you must be consistent.  Lord flatulence demands it of us.  Poor choices in children's names is no laughing matter.

        2. Idiot, 
          Not even close.  But hey – maybe some progressives who like to mischarecterize opposing philosophies' arguments might find your comment funny.

          1. mischarecterize opposing philosophies

             

            Bwahahaha…good one.

            Oh-wait…

            Exactly how many guns do the laws signed today take away?

            Hell- even approximatey?

             

            And are the restrictions enacted by background  checks, training requirements, and magazine limits constitutional or not?

             

            1. I understand that the law that Hickenlooper signed eliminates your ability to choose to own a high clip magazine in Colorado. Is that not correct?

              1. Screaming "fire" in a crowded theater being illegal is an infringement on your liberty as well, I suppose.

                Trying to at least lessen the instances of mass killings by assault weapons is perfectly rational, and this extension of the 2nd Amendment to places it's never been before is asinine.

                But you already know that.

                1. Screaming fire in a crowded theater is not an on point analogy as that is expressive conduct intended to cause injury.

                  Here, no injury is threatened by the mere ownership.  Accordingly, your example fails

                  1. Really?

                    What do you think the express purpose of a military assault weapon with a 30 round magazine is?

                    Where in your world does reality apply?

                    Try that one on the Newtown parents, the families of the Aurora theater massacre, the people that went to see Gabby, and the Columbine survivors.

                    Seriously, and not to be macabre, have you ever seen the aftermath of the work one of these weapons does to the human body?

                    Your penchant to leave reality out of your libertarian utopia exposes you as naive, as well as soul less.

                    Ayn rand had the same callous approach to and about "entitlements".

                    Then she needed them.

                    Yeah, assault weapons are a lot like crowded theater/fire pranks.

                    Injuries are the whole idea.

                    1. Maybe a sense of security? 😉

                      Your complaint is that such an item can be used to hurt kids.  Well so can alcohol (drunk driving).  So can pot perhaps (driving under influence, though the studies are not as solid). 

                      Coloradans rejected penalizing all law abiding people just because a few may abuse marijuana in the Amd. 64 despite all the scare tactics of the anti-64 crowd in the last election.  Hopefully they will reject the same scare tactics here that you, and the Democrats, are utilizing with guns. 

                    2. Oh brother, Rocco, look who's talking about on point analogy. Or on point anything, for that matter. LOL.

              2. OH Noes!

                The US Constitution does not expressly give me the right to wear shoes.  The word shoes never appears in the document.

                You see- when they came for secessionists, I did not care because I was not a secessionist.  ANd when they came for the felons, I did not care because I was not a felon.  But when they came for the shoe wearers,  I was all alone.

                 

                 

                Thank you for not  cross examining me. Stick to the point- are the laws as passed Constitutional or not? If so- what's the big hooey kaflooey, and if not, why?  Troll doesn't begin to describe your …presence. 

                You should out someone here.  I never under stood why the (acronymic slang for oral sex) or that other one never got busted for outing themselves, but apparently that doesn't count.  Now, if it was me, I would ban you for "outing" a child.  But I wouldna waited that long – you're an overeducated, pompous blowhard.  But you should definitely run for public office- perhaps you could get the L party their first big win here.  Do the L's have a gov candidate yet?

                1. I didn't make a constitutional argument.  I made a policy argument.  Somebody asked for constitutional view on privacy in regard to substantive process (touching on abortion) and I obliged them even though it was tangential. 

                  As for outing a child, what are you talking about?  The only thing I can discern was my reasoning for not responding to DaftPunk b/c of his/her outing MY toddler in a prior post. 

  2. I am extremely disappointed that Reid has decided, and notified Feinstein, that assault weapons and ass murder magazines are off the table. I know why he did it. There are many D Senators who are afraid they will lose their next election so they don't think they can vote for it. Senators, think about more than the next election. Senator Mark Udall, is you are one of them I beg you to change your mind and support Feinstein's bill. Further, sponsor and work for a bill that imposes universal registration

    1. I can understand the assault weapon ban being off the table. If it couldn't pass here it certainly won't at the federal level and public support isn't as strong as on some of the other proposals.  But the ban on mass murder magazines a very good name for them, by the way, should stand. 

      Too bad Harry also wimped out on the talking filibuster.  The ideal wouuld be to leave the Triple M provision in, mobilize public support, then let the Rs do a talking filibuster explaining to the supportive American majority exactly why they would rather kill all sensible gun control than slightly inconvenience recreational shooters by forcing them to reload a few times more often.

      Or why they think anyone needs to bring that much firepower to the door for self defence.  

      Or whether they really think we can have several folks with questionable skills   start blasting away at a bad guy in a crowd of innocent families with 33 round magazines and 50 round drums without dismembering even more little children than the number that were dismembered at Sandy Hook.

      Those in support of the Triple M ban could use the coverage of the filibuster ( the media sure loved Paul's old fashioned filibuster and gave it and everything around it lots of attention. The next one would still be a novelty) for their own 24/7 round of pressers to counter all the lies the gun lobby puppets would surely use in their filibuster.

      Anything would be better than just letting them hand in a note to block the will of the people.

      But Harry surrendered on any filibuster rules that would so much as inconvenience the obstructionists.

       

    2. We're electing the wrong people to Congress – no backbone.  But we will do no better until we fix campaign finance, and that of course is exceedingly tough because the Congressional system protects the powerful (both elected and otherwise).

  3. An interesting (tongue-in-cheek?) question/proposal posted on Facebook by Alexander Hornaday.  Alex is a prominent civil-unions supporting and pro-immigrant member of the Denver GOP:
     

    "Alexander W C Hornaday

    Modest proposal: Universal background checks for those purchasing abortions; limit doctors to no more than 15 abortions a year. If gun transactions, which might, though rarely, result in a death can be restricted without violating the explicit protection in the 2d Amendment, surely an abortion, which always result in a death and are protected only by implications and penumbras, can be restricted similarly."

    This is reposted with Alex's permission to me. 

    1. right to privacy.  right to keep and bear.

       

      Neither is unlimited. But a background check is directly anethema to one- and just a mere nuisance for the other.

      1. Bet Eliot would be paralyzed if he had to directly address a point any of us made on any subject without bringing abortion into the discussion.   Or what he claims liberals think about all kinds of other subjects.  Imagine him discussing the pros and cons of gun safety regulations by talking about…. gun safety regulations.  Just by themselves.  Not compared to somehting else.

        Why do Fladen and friends find such a simple thing so utterly impossible while the rest of us have no problem with it at all.  Could it be that they've got nothing?  You know, like when students don't really know the answer on an essay test and try to get some points by just putting down as much as they can think of that might have any tenuous connection to the subject at hand? Hey, I understand.  Been there, done that. Should have studied more but was having too much fun. I know how it is.

        1. Except Bluecat that Abortion/Alcohol/Pot is on point here.  You want choice with those but not with Guns.  And you don't really have a good reason as to why. 

          1. Choice has never been a consideration when any other gun safety laws have gone before the Supremes. I actually have a higher threshold than David. I'll bet you $100 that choice will not be a concern when the CO and NY statutes make it to the Supremes. I'm sure that your law school professor would be very immpressed that you are still wearing the brown nose you earned in his class but I'd be that some of your class mates, while sitting around with a doobie and beers, if your name arises they laugh, groan and shreik "Lochner". "Did you hear what that dude Elliot named his daughter?"

            So, since choice has never been considered in any gun safety laws before the Supremes I argue that your effort here is without any value and should be ignored

          2. Not one gun was seized or removed by the laws passed in Colorado.

            Not even one. So that would be zero. The new laws do not restrict your choice of guns (though there is plenty of restriction already) 

             

            Restrictons on alcihol and mj too.

            Hell- there's restrictions on cars, clothes, language, and a zillion other things. Why are you fixated on abortion/mj and alcohol? Oh, and magazine limits.

                1. I am not a second amendment expert so I do not know.  However, even assuming the laws' constitutionally does not change the policy analysis.  For example, Westboro's actions are largely constitutional but they still are not good.  Similarly, I doubt you think the Patriot Act is good policy.

                    1. MadCO – I do not know if they are or are not.  Dave Kopel has his doubts on this but he is the topic expert, not me – so you would need to ask him.

                    2. EF-

                      what a weasel repsonse.

                      Of course you don't know – you were just….trolling for discussion yesterday.

                      So – the list is short, but at least one longer. 

                      There are a small number of regular posters here, or post types, that I try never to reply to.  You are now both.  (PS just a thought: leave the family and personal life out of it – ie don't link your FB)

                    3. MadCo, 
                      As I have repeatedly said my argument yesterday was policy in nature.  I was willing to entertain people to a discussion of ConLaw to the extent I had a decent degree of knowledge in the areas under discussion.  I am not a student of second amendment jurisprudence so, unlike some posters on this site, I am not going to spout off on stuff I know little about. 

                    5. This is getting ridiculous, Madco.  All this spouting we've been hearing from the guy about freedom, liberty and  2nd amendment rights but, turns out, it was never about the constitution.  It was about policy. Wow!

                      Howdoes a person carry on for weeks about 2nd amendment rights but then say it has nothing to do with the constitution?

                      And whether or not a specific gun control law will prove to be judged constitutional, one doesn't have to be an expert to know the quite knowable fact that many regulations affecting our second amendment rights have, in fact, been judged to be constitutional to date.  Nobody is claiming expertise on all the details but that fact is indeed knowable by the general public.

                      But never mind all that.  Here we thought so much yapping about.rights, liberty, freedom, tyranny, the 2nd amendment, etc. was making some reference to the Constitution and it turns out it was always just about policy all along. Silly us. That's really rich.

  4. If Republicans are returned to control we will repeal these bills immediately – Senator Brophy

    Senator Brophy – please, please please have the every GOP candidate make this the center-piece of their campaign. That will be a gigantic help to the Democratic candidates.

    1. You beat me to it David.  Brophy just made the clearest, most concise statement for why Colorado Republicans should never be trusted with the levers of power again.

    2. So to that point, did the Dems run on gun control as there main platform this last cycle?  If I am not mistaken it was on jobs in Colorado.  In fact in a recent poll, gun control was number 6 on concerns of Coloradoan’s, jobs number 1.  And so far, there first effective piece of legislation will be chasing at least one multiple million dollar company out of the state with hundreds of jobs, with more companies to follow.

      Let’s see how that plays out in the next cycle.

        1. So you don't believe that jobs have a much higher percedence than gun control in this state?  And if I were to provide you with a link to said poll would you change your position?

          1. I've got an idea — let's do both gun safety and boost jobs!

            Colorado's unemployment rate continued downward in January, falling to 7.3 percent from December's 7.5 percent, the state Department of Labor and Employment said Monday.
            The rate is down 1 percentage point from 8.3 percent in January 2012. The national unemployment rate in January was 7.9 percent.

            Read more: Colorado unemployment down to 7.3 percent in January – The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22815189/colorado-unemployment-down-7-3-percent-january#ixzz2O86Ql7H1
            Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
            Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

          2. there is a CO jobs bill. doesn't matter which is addressed first because in CO, unless otherwise legislated, all laws go into effect 7/1

            1. That's not going to happen.

              I'm not going to call koch a liar yet, though.

              My sense is he heard it, maybe at the bar, on the radio, WND, on faux, maybe brownie or boyles said it, or at the job site.

              Maybe he actually believes the source, or just hopes it's correct.

              It's grasping at straws, as though he and other goonies are hoping for a mass shooting going forwrd, just to show"it don't work".

              And that scares me. We all have children, and we all fear for all childrens' safety.

              But you're never going to see a poll, unless taken at the gun shop between the weapons traffickers, showing guns as 6th.

              Ain't gonna happen.Good catch, Ari.

          1. actually I do think that, particularly on the West Slope, there will be a voter backlash. Ds might lose their majority and Brophy may get his wish. then we'll see if Hick vetoes the repeals

            1. Maybe Gray, but I don't think so.

              My feel is that we've had enough. I mean the vast majority of people that vote.

              This will always be out there, because dudley brown's paid to agitate the goober base into this frenzy they're frothing in. But there are other things out there too, and only the real live 1 issue gun nuts will run it into the ground.

              Maybe it's wishfull thinking on my part, and you might be right. You know the western slope, and if that's how it goes, oh wow, that's scary.

              1. Of course, the Ds have very little representation on the est Slope now. Gail Schartz is it. So, we may only lose that one and maybe Giron

  5. Jon Caldera sent this to me this afternoon:

    "And due to the must "maintain continuous possession" clause to grandfather in previously owned mags, I won't be able to teach my daughter how to shoot my gun – she cannot hold the gun that uses the original magazine. My brother, a volunteer gun range officer will not be able to assist a gun student with a malfunctioning gun. …he will have to choose between keeping the gun range safe or becoming a criminal. A husband cannot lend his gun with an original magazine to his wife"

    The nuttiness is strong with these people.

     

  6. Well, now that some of you, our best minds, have wasted your time massaging EF's ego, I hope you're happy. What a fucked up waste of a thread. Congrats. Sleep well.

    2. DooD!  Why you gotta be like that?

      If somone had just told me before…  I left BJ alone. I learned to leave JO alone.   I have been a very consistet ignorer of the one.  I never take on the pointless Saturday videos.   I missed this one for a bit.  I'm on it.  Next time- a heads up. Thank you.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

134 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!