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%
September 06, 2013 01:39 PM UTC
20 Comments
HAHAHA. All that hype, and political damage, and loss of tourism, loss of jobs: FOR TEN GUNS?!!!
Spin it all your want, Pols. This is a disaster for the gun control movement. Not only do your laws not make us safer, they're completely useless. You're only inconveniencing law abiding citizens, and this story proves it.
Hang it up, Pols. Your spin skills are getting weak.
Disaster? Blocked 10 gun sales to idiots who should have known they were on the No Guns list. Blocked an unknown number of other sales to people who weren't so dumb. That's not quite 2% of private checks performed, and I'd like to think I don't live in a state where more than perhaps 3-4% of the population overall is both (a) banned from owning a gun and (b) stupid enough to try to buy one and subject himself to a background check.
Guns-at-every-cost supporters are always going on about how someone can get a gun anywhere. Well, these 10+ people didn't get a gun last month, and it's due to this law.
How is this a disaster again?
Do you know what the biggest loophole is with these stupid gun laws?
Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Nebraska, and Kansas. And a little piece of Oklahoma. Are you going to put up checkpoints?
Like I said, you've done nothing but inconvenience law abiding citizens.
Evidence of tourism loss please? Here's the thing. 10 a month would be about 120 a year. That's 120 more than the number of documented cases of successful voter fraud you can show us yet you people keep urging more hurdles and burdens to prevent something you can't offer a single example of. Hurdles and burdens that most of your own party's County Clerks have done an apparently completely successful job without.
That's not too burdensome for you. But private transaction checks that actually have prevented people who shouldn't have guns from buying them is an outrageous burden. Yeah. Right.
There is plenty of evidence. Right after the bills passed, two major shooting competitions announced they were pulling out of Colorado.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/03/Intenational-Defensive-Pistol-Match-Canceled-Because-Of-Colorado-Magazine-Ban
If the lawsuits fail and Democrats aren't turned out of office, it will happen again.
Talk is cheap – neither pulled out.
Buthe SAID they were going to!!!! They SAID it!
two shooting competitions? Who cares. Many people are glad magpul is leaving Colorado. Good riddance to them gun nuts I say.
AS far as I can see about the only "tourists" who'd be discouraged are psychopaths like yourself and I'd just as soon they stayed out of Colorado.If that's the best you've got your spin skills are little better than Pols.How are "law abiding citizens"inconvenienced by abiding by the law? Seems altogether less inconvenient than the picture ID wingnuts want everyone to have in order to cast a legal ballot and I've yet to hear of a fatal driveby balloting or of a school full of children, or a theater full of citizens being killed by illegal balloting.
That explains why applications for hunting tags are down so much.
Hmm, but if you could positively point to 10 fraudulent votes prevented by a voter ID law (that prevented thousands of legitimate citizens from voting), you'd be creaming your pants from joy and excitement, right?
Just wanted to do a comparison on the hypocrisy scale 🙂
Wow, that's an image of the Modster that I really don't want stuck in my head!
I would like to drive really, really fast all the time…but I don't.
So do I. I'd like to do so while being able to cross center lines to hit the true apex of corners and do so without a license or insurance.
And the biggest problem with your reporting and the rest of the media is they leave out important details about the bill. HB 1229 not only requires background checks for transfers of ownership but also just lending a gun to someone in a lot of cases. Had this bill been written for transfer of ownership I think there would have been a lot less contraversy.
You seem to have left out some important details too . Where is the language requiring background checks for the loan of a firearm? Since that pertains in"lots of cases"
I'd think you'd be only too delighted to point out precisely the faults of this legislation and since it's lots of cases, it ought to be easy,but you've not done that. Why is that?
Obviously you haven't read the bill. "18-12-112. Private firearms transfers – background check required – penalty – definitions. (1) (a) ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 2013, EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (6) OF THIS SECTION, BEFORE ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A LICENSED GUN DEALER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S., TRANSFERS OR ATTEMPTS TO TRANSFER POSSESSION OF A FIREARM TO A TRANSFEREE, HE OR SHE SHALL:"
It says nothing about transfer of ownership. It says transfer of possession. In law possession is not the same as ownership. (see http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/possession). In fact that bill even adds some limited exceptions for "(e) A TEMPORARY TRANSFER OF POSSESSION WITHOUT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR A TITLE TO OWNERSHIP,".
Here are things that are now illegal:
1.) I live with anyone that is not an immediate family member, they have access to the safe, I am out of town for more than 72 hours.
2.) I loan someone a firearm and they are hunting for more than 72 hours, and I am not hunting with them.
3.) Storage of any firearm for a person who is in the armed forces while they are deployed if I am not an immediate family member.
There are endless variations of all of these.
These radical gun toting wingnuts are morons. We do not care if magpul is leaving. I say good riddance and get lost.
How do they know which transfers are private and which are not? Technically wouldn't EVERY transfer be recorded as dealer transfer?
I sure hope those two in the picture got their backgrounds checked.