Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted

[DouglasR]

Assault-weapons ban: Insights and opinions from activists, experts, legislators and law enforcement officers

How have the courts ruled on the constitutionality of similar bans? What's the next gun-reform step Illinois should take? Will Illinois' neighbors ever take similar steps? Answering those questions and

www.news-gazette.com

 

[shootbrownelk]

Colorado is screwed. They are going to turn that place into eastern California in no time.

That happened a long time ago.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

That happened a long time ago.

Yep, pretty sad to see because it is a spectacular place. We all know the playbook when an urban mega metro area dominates an otherwise rural state.

 

[BobbyBill]

No, it does not specifically enumerate that right nor a right to self defense.

The later has been held by courts to be an “unenumerated right”, the 2A might imply that there are unenumerated rights but it doesn’t literally say what they are, there have been cases to this effect, not “just my opinion”.

State laws typically dictate self defense not federal law, castle doctrine/stand your ground, etc. The states decide what use of individual force is permissible and under what circumstances.

Until the 14th amendment 1868, the 2A and constitution only applied to the federal government and its relationship with citizens, the equal protection clause in the 14th is where created a provision whereby the federal government will protect rights of individuals when they are violated by the state.

For instance this was the law which allowed much of the federal civil rights involvement in the south, see Little Rock Nine.

The Constitution of the State of Colorado not only affirms the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States’, “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, but also further clarifies that this right specifically includes “The right . . . to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned”, shall not be called in question.

The Constitution of the United States,
Amendment II (December 15, 1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT XIV (July 9, 1868). Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitution of the State of Colorado (July 1, 1876)
Article II, Bill of Rights, Section 13.
Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

 

[BobbyBill]

The Constitution of the State of Colorado not only affirms the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States’, “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, but also further clarifies that this right specifically includes “The right . . . to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned”, shall not be called in question.

The Constitution of the United States,
Amendment II (December 15, 1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT XIV (July 9, 1868). Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitution of the State of Colorado (July 1, 1876)
Article II, Bill of Rights, Section 13.
Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

My Thoughts:

• The vast majority of gun owners are not criminals and are not the ones committing the violent crimes.
• The Democrat Party, as eventually all major political parties do throughout history, have been corrupted by the specter of more power and wealth than the people are willing to give.
• The Democrats, in reality, are no different than the Republicans in their desire for power and wealth, they have just chosen a different path to the same authoritarian goal.
• The Democratic Party has chosen “gun control” as the incremental path to disarmament of the American people in preparation for incrementally reducing democratic freedoms while also imposing authoritarian government regulations.
• This is not to say that the Republican Party, if they were able to approach their own authoritarian goals, would not immediately reverse their position on “gun control”; because no authoritarian government can peacefully exist while the people are still armed.
• The American people will not willingly give up their RIGHT “. . . to keep and bear arms . . .” and the ability to resist government use of force to confiscate guns is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States. The Battles of Lexington and Concord on 19 April 1775, the famous ‘shot heard ‘round the world’, marked the start of the American War of Independence (1775-83).
• The first documented use of gorilla tactics in warfare was the American Revolution and the first snipers were the Colonial Backwoodsmen with their Colonial Long Rifles!

 

[SAJ-99]

Slow day on the QAnon Facebook page.

 

[perma]

Yep, pretty sad to see because it is a spectacular place. We all know the playbook when an urban mega metro area dominates an otherwise rural state.

*cough cough* Chicago

 

[BobbyBill]

Slow day on the QAnon Facebook page.

I wouldn't know, but it seems you do.

 

[SAJ-99]

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The Constitution of the State of Colorado not only affirms the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States’, “right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, but also further clarifies that this right specifically includes “The right . . . to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned”, shall not be called in question.

The Constitution of the United States,
Amendment II (December 15, 1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT XIV (July 9, 1868). Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Constitution of the State of Colorado (July 1, 1876)
Article II, Bill of Rights, Section 13.
Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Yes precisely.

 

[COEngineer]

You think the second amendment furnishes a right to insurrection?

Plus stare decisis is dead, so the individual right is up for grabs. It’s definitely a possibility that heller will be flipped in our lifetimes.

But yes to your question the 2A puts the gun in a glass case that's all it does, other laws, statutes, amendments, provisions dictate how that gun in the case may be used.

No, it's not a right to insurrection. No government can stand that makes it legal to get rid of said government. The point of the 2nd Amend is that when necessary, the people can *illegally* get rid of the tyrants. If the government can take away guns, then the people will be forced to use rocks and pitchforks, but the Founders realized that guns keep things much closer to a level playing field.

I am genuinely baffled that this is a point of discussion. It is absolutely, concretely, fixed in my mind and I'm really struggling to contemplate a different view of the 2nd Amend. Why would it be a fundamental right (it's the 2nd one listed - right after free speech!) if it were protecting something even remotely benign.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

No, it's not a right to insurrection. No government can stand that makes it legal to get rid of said government. The point of the 2nd Amend is that when necessary, the people can *illegally* get rid of the tyrants. If the government can take away guns, then the people will be forced to use rocks and pitchforks, but the Founders realized that guns keep things much closer to a level playing field.

I am genuinely baffled that this is a point of discussion. It is absolutely, concretely, fixed in my mind and I'm really struggling to contemplate a different view of the 2nd Amend. Why would it be a fundamental right (it's the 2nd one listed - right after free speech!) if it were protecting something even remotely benign.

The Heller opinion is really long, but also very interesting, especially if you read the dissents, Breyer and Stevens. It was a 5-4 ruling so certainly could have gone the other way and likely those dissents will be the arguments made if a different court overturns Heller.

The point of the 2nd Amend is that when necessary, the people can *illegally* get rid of the tyrants. If the government can take away guns, then the people will be forced to use rocks and pitchforks, but the Founders realized that guns keep things much closer to a level playing field.

Is it or are you conflating the 2A and the combative language of the Declaration. The words Tyranny and Tyrant do not appear in the constitution, Defend only appears as once in the oath of office for the president.

The country our politics have changed a lot of various topics. The 2A was not an issue for 100+ years. Think about this switch blade knives were illegal in almost every state even the western gun friendly ones Texas, Nevada, Montana, etc.

Those laws weren't repealed until very very recently, 2019 Montana, 2013 Texas, 2015 Nevada, they are still illegal in states like PA, MN, NM...

Why is a knife illegal but not an AR-15? Is a knife not an arm... why does Heller not apply to switch blades?

At least part of the issue has to do with there is less money to be made selling them and Tucker Carlson doesn’t rant about them... anyway read Heller it's interesting.

 

[BobbyBill]

The Heller opinion is really long, but also very interesting, especially if you read the dissents, Breyer and Stevens. It was a 5-4 ruling so certainly could have gone the other way and likely those dissents will be the arguments made if a different court overturns Heller.


Is it or are you conflating the 2A and the combative language of the Declaration. The words Tyranny and Tyrant do not appear in the constitution, Defend only appears as once in the oath of office for the president.

The country our politics have changed a lot of various topics. The 2A was not an issue for 100+ years. Think about this switch blade knives were illegal in almost every state even the western gun friendly ones Texas, Nevada, Montana, etc.

Those laws weren't repealed until very very recently, 2019 Montana, 2013 Texas, 2015 Nevada, they are still illegal in states like PA, MN, NM...

Why is a knife illegal but not an AR-15? Is a knife not an arm... why does Heller not apply to switch blades?

Probably cause not that many people give a crap... anyway read Heller it's interesting.

I also am totally confused about this conversation! The 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about what you can or can not do with Arms, it only says ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There are tens of thousands other laws that say what you can not do with Arms. Laws only imply what you can do with Arms by not making your action illegal; laws do not and can not identify the infinity of actions that are not listed as being illegal!

 

[Irrelevant]

1. I commend @wllm and @Stocker for attempting rational dialogue.
2. I can't believe I just read through that entire thread without seeing a @vikings... wait a @BisonGuy legal argument.
3. There are so many aspects of thought, life, and societal structure that could factor into our obsession with firearms, yet the loathing of shiny black guns and the seemingly irrational focus mass killing by said shiny objects that I tend to think the discussion is pointless. I bet not a single person on here changed their opinion. For me, I don't view it as a gun problem, or a morality problem, but a more of happiness issue. Why are people less happy? I have lots of thoughts as to why, and no real answers. I think there too little nature, too little honor, too little control of our own lives (though I could be convinced of the opposite too), too little community, too much free time, too much money, and not nearly enough struggle. Is it possible that we have created a negative feedback loop for human society? I mean we're as much a part of nature and natural laws as any other species, would we not eventually find ways of controlling or reducing our populations? Maybe a form of societal blight. Are guns really even the topic we're talking about or is this more existential to the human condition?

4. I saw sun this weekend for the first time in weeks, it may have done weird things to my thinking...

 

[VikingsGuy]

2. I can't believe I just read through that entire thread without seeing a @vikings... wait a @BisonGuy legal argument.

At some point I lose interest in a topic - whatever thoughts I had to offer have been offered in 20 other identical threads.

No different than why I respond to fewer - what budget gun should I get for my kids, how should I start reloading, can a 6.5 Creedmoor kill an elk, etc, etc. Not that any of these are bad questions - it is that the answer really hasn’t changed since the last 15 times it was asked.

But if SCOTUS makes new law I will be back at the keyboard since there is actually something new to discuss that can’t already be found in dozens of HT search results.

 

[Irrelevant]

At some point I lose interest in a topic - whatever thoughts I had to offer have been offered in 20 other identical threads.

No different than why I respond to fewer - what budget gun should I get for my kids, how should I start reloading, can a 6.5 Creedmoor kill an elk, etc, etc. Not that any of these are bad questions - it is that the answer really hasn’t changed since the last 15 times it was asked.

But if SCOTUS makes new law I will be back at the keyboard since there is actually something new to discuss that can’t already be found in dozens of HT search results.

I wondered as much

 

[Doublecluck]

But if SCOTUS makes new law I will be back at the keyboard since there is actually something new to discuss that can’t already be found in dozens of HT search results.

This Colorado thing is kinda boring. Fizzled out.

Hey forget about laws, how about “rules” and rule changes. Wonder how many huntalkers along with 3-10 million other Americans are gonna be felons in 115 ish days?

Might be a good thread.

 

[elkduds]

My Thoughts:

• The first documented use of gorilla tactics in warfare was the American Revolution and the first snipers were the Colonial Backwoodsmen with their Colonial Long Rifles!

Germanic/Celtic tribes successfully used guerilla tactics to defeat superior numbers of Roman soldiers, and ultimately hamstring the Empire.

I disagree with your talking point about the common motivation of all democrats to disarm law-abiding Americans. Rather, the goal is to reduce the carnage of mass shootings, firearm suicides, juvenile gun deaths, etc. Our government has so far been unsuccessful, as proven by the #s. Other governments have been far more successful at this, and a large part of their interventions have centered around reducing the availability of guns in general to at-risk populations (children, mentally ill) and automatic/semi/high capacity firearms (Australia). Nothing else has been proven to work at reducing the impacts on gun violence on national populations. Obviously, proven solutions are preferred when other solutions have failed, particularly while the US body count exceeds 38,000 annually (2018).

I agree that absolute rejection of gun legislation tilts the political and public see-saw against NRA, etc. If the law of the land distills down to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs the right to keep and bear arms, 2A will necessarily lose.

I agree that lack of enforcement of existing laws undermines the effectiveness of existing gun laws on its surface. Sheriffs that refuse to enforce gun laws are a prime example, and a flashing neon irony. Some existing gun laws should be better enforced, some improved, some reconsidered.

 

[VikingsGuy]

This Colorado thing is kinda boring, not sure why I ever commented on the first place.

Hey forget about laws, how about “rules” and rule changes. Wonder how many huntalkers along with 3-10 million other Americans are gonna be felons in 115 ish days?

Might be a good thread.

I assume you are talking SBR/pistol rule proposal. While I personally do not not like defining weapons by barrel length or arbitrary features (pistol grip, etc), frankly the proposed rule is closer to the actual statutory language than the current approach.

But as we justify eliminating drug laws so we don’t make millions of otherwise harmless people felons, seems like making millions of otherwise law abiding citizens felons over arbitrary barrel length and stock definitions is ironic.

It just shows again, neither left or right has any principled basis - it is just tribal quasi-religion segmenting the “good/bad” people according to the chosen orthodoxy, virtue signaling and dependable single issue voters to get to 51%.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Germanic/Celtic tribes successfully used guerilla tactics to defeat superior numbers of Roman soldiers, and ultimately hamstring the Empire.

And closer to home, the American revolutionary era militias learned it from the Indians in the French and Indian War.

[/QUOTE]