A bill that would ban the sale, manufacture, importation and transfer of a*sault weapons — and define what those firearms are — will soon enter the gun regulation debate at the Colorado Capitol. The proposal, sponsored by Democratic state Reps. Andrew Boesenecker and Elisabeth Epps, drops earlier draft language that would have outright banned possession of those types of firearms. Conservative groups leaked the earlier version, which Boesenecker called a “snapshot in time” as they worked through the proposal. Advocates dropped that provision out of concerns of enforceability. Instead, sponsors focused on the sale and transfer of weapons capable of shooting a lot of bullets quickly — or capable of being modified to do that, Boesenecker, who represents Fort Collins, said. The goal is to blunt access to the types of firearms used in the mass shootings at the Boulder King Soopers in March 2021 and Club Q in November. He said he began working on the proposal before the Club Q massacre. “If you are the legal owner of an a*sault weapon today, nothing changes for you in our state,” Boesenecker said of the proposal. “We’re really focused on creating a moment between a motive to do something harmful to yourself or your community, and the moment where you can readily acquire the firearm to do it.” The bill hasn’t been formally introduced yet, but should be soon, he said. Boesenecker had previously declined to comment on the leaked draft that included the possession ban. Some of the features that would classify a gun as an a*sault weapon under the bill include semi-automatic rifles with a detachable ammunition magazine plus one of the following: A pistol grip; a protruding grip for the non-trigger hand; a folding, telescoping or detachable stock that can enhance the ability to conceal the weapon; a barrel shroud; or flash suppressor, among others. It would include semi-automatic pistols in the a*sault weapon definitions if they can have a second pistol grip, the ability to accept a magazine or ammunition feeding device in a place other than the pistol grip, weighs more than 50 ounces unloaded or includes an arm brace or similar accessory that extends horizontally behind the grip, among other provisions. Because firearms vary so much and can be modified in so many ways, defining what constitutes an a*sault weapon has been a point of contention. He said these features and others included in the definitions are those that allow people “to fire a large amount of ammunition very quickly.” Boesenecker said the bill’s language doesn’t affect the sale or transfer of “firearms that we would typically think of in a concealed carry or self-defense situation,” such as a semi-automatic handgun with a magazine that loads in the grip. “We know that these are very close models of weapons of war,” Boesenecker said. “… At the very least, that is their intended purpose, first and foremost. We know that regulations and prohibitions in this space save lives.” He cited a 2018 study by the Rand Corporation, which was updated this month, that found even state-level weapon bans reduce mass shooting deaths to 55% of what’s expected without the bans. Boesnecker said he grew up shooting pistols for target practice and remembers schools clearing out during deer season. He still owns firearms and enjoys target shooting, he said — but also believes steps can be taken to prevent gun violence that doesn’t impede Coloradans’ Second Amendment rights. He acknowledged that neighboring states don’t have — and have little to no likelihood of enacting — these types of restrictions and that it would take federal action to close that avenue. Regardless of other states, Boesenecker said Colorado can take its own steps. The bill will likely be one of several proposed gun regulations introduced this session. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has specifically called for lawmakers to look at expanding the extreme risk protection order, or red flag, law and to address so-called ghost guns. The pro-gun rights advocacy group Rocky Mountain Gun Owners has already pledged to sue over any firearm law it sees as overstepping Second Amendment rights. Boesenecker said they crafted the bill with recent pro-gun rights U.S. Supreme Court rulings in mind. He noted that Illinois passed a similar bill — with some of the same definitions — though it is also facing its own legal challenges. Nine states, plus Washington, D.C., have some version of an a*sault weapons ban. Colorado’s Republican lawmakers have also staked their support for gun owners’ rights, though they hold a superminority in the state House of Representatives and a near-superminority in the Senate.

 https://www.denverpost.co .. pon-ban-sales/

This won't do much to stop gun violence. It's just a feel good gesture based on principle.

view image

Same gun only one of them would be banned.

terrible decision

the criminals will still have ARs.

This only prevents law abiding citizens from owning ARs to protect themselves from the bad guys

JetLifeSwag said terrible decision the criminals will still have ARs. This only prevents law abiding citizens from owning ARs to protect themselves from the bad guys

That's always been a dumbass argument

We don't care you want to shoot powerful sh*t at phone books and tree stumps...enough is fu*king enough...it may not stop crime..but it sure as hell is a deterrent which currently there are very few if any in place

view image

What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do they not understand? If it manages to pass, I hope the Supreme Court blocks this bullsh*t. This is the reason why people will keep voting Republican.

Why argue gun laws instead of spend on infrastructure?

SomeOnesoN said view image What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do they not understand? If it manages to pass, I hope the Supreme Court blocks this bullsh*t. This is the reason why people will keep voting Republican.

unless you belong to a well regulated militia you do not have the right to own a fire arm


the 2nd was written by alexander hamilton
much of the wording is based on his federalist papers #29 to be exact

view image

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

view image

The intent was for the US to not have a federal standing army
The well regulated militia was to be under control and guidance from the governor of each state. This was to ensure that the president would not have the power of a monarchy



further the intent was for the arm to be well regulated
currently there are less regulations than before the constitution was written.


Before there were police or any sort of law enforcement each town had what they called the justice of the peace. It was his job to act as a holder for all firearms for persons entering a town. Contrary to what you see in westerns there were large scale shoot outs in the "wild west".

For example only 4 people total died in Tombstone and only 8 people that entire year in the state of kansas from gun violence

SomeOnesoN said view image What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do they not understand? If it manages to pass, I hope the Supreme Court blocks this bullsh*t. This is the reason why people will keep voting Republican.

What part of "Well Regulated Militia" don't y'all understand?

SomeOnesoN said view image What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do they not understand? If it manages to pass, I hope the Supreme Court blocks this bullsh*t. This is the reason why people will keep voting Republican.

Why skip the well-regulated militia part?

It's one statement. Not two separate ideas.

And yes, people do vote Republican because they don't understand. That party literally only exists because half the country is really fu*king stupid.

Account001 said Why argue gun laws instead of spend on infrastructure?

Colorado has fu*ked up infrastructure?

Pragmatically, a gun ban seems easier to accomplish than funding large infrastructure projects.

Proffesor X said That's always been a dumbass argument We don't care you want to shoot powerful sh*t at phone books and tree stumps...enough is fu*king enough...it may not stop crime..but it sure as hell is a deterrent which currently there are very few if any in place

It’s not only for sports shooting. It’s for the people to be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invasion. You don’t see learn from history and current events I see.

it's more guns than people wtf a gun ban gonna do but feed the prison industrial system. These politicians the ones that need to be locked up. Stupid laws that only help the rich and the gays is why the country gone to hell.

TheRealisBack said It’s not only for sports shooting. It’s for the people to be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invasion. You don’t see learn from history and current events I see.

Just stop dude, the practicality of most weapons that are legally sold today are completely bogus. This is preference of wanting to own weapons cause you like guns...........the government has never turn on WHITE citizens a day in their life........and guns laws in America were only enacted to keep freed slaves from having the right to protect themselves from RACIST WHITE PEOPLE....

Current events don't require people to own AR weapons..........I don't want to live in a world where dumbass untrained idiots walk around with loaded mass damage weapons like they are chosen protectors of us all..........those type of people are the fu*king problem breh

Tlatoani said Why skip the well-regulated militia part? It's one statement. Not two separate ideas. And yes, people do vote Republican because they don't understand. That party literally only exists because half the country is really fu*king stupid.

And there you go with your nwo agenda 2030 talking points Lol

Why not finish the rest of the statement

Why skip the “being necessary to the security of a free state.” part?

It’s a whole statement not 3 separate ideas.

The whole US is the well-regulated militia. That was the point. That’s why we have guns fool. If the people are the armed power of the state then that power cannot be used against the people.

HERMES said And there you go with your nwo agenda 2030 talking points Lol Why not finish the rest of the statement Why skip the “being necessary to the security of a free state.” part? It’s a whole statement not 3 separate ideas. The whole US is the well-regulated militia. That was the point. That’s why we have guns fool. If the people are the armed power of the state then that power cannot be used against the people.

Somebody already posted the relevant section from the Federalists Papers.

Not surprised you just make sh*t up and ignore the relevant facts.

TheRealisBack said It’s not only for sports shooting. It’s for the people to be armed to protect themselves from a tyrannical government or invasion. You don’t see learn from history and current events I see.

That's what a well-regulated state militia is for.

As has already been posted in this thread, a random guy with a sh*t ton of guns is not what the founding fathers were referring to when they said a well-regulated militia was necessary.

Tlatoani said Somebody already posted the relevant section from the Federalists Papers. Not surprised you just make sh*t up and ignore the relevant facts.

The facts are I can legally have and buy as many guns as I want because that’s what our 2nd amendment says. You are the one trying to change sh*t and make sh*t up lol

HERMES said The facts are I can legally have and buy as many guns as I want because that’s what our 2nd amendment says. You are the one trying to change sh*t and make sh*t up lol

Again, the relevant section from the Federalist Papers has already been posted.

You can continue living in ignorance as an adult or you can make an honest effort to continue learning.

Have some self-respect at the very least.

Posession of guns by a felons is already a crime, but that's not stopping Chicago felons from getting guns and shooting people.
Denver is going to become the next Chicago.

unit321 said Posession of guns by a felons is already a crime, but that's not stopping Chicago felons from getting guns and shooting people. Denver is going to become the next Chicago.

Chicago felons are getting guns from the legal states on every side of Illinois.

Super duper easy in this country to get a gun.

Tlatoani said Again, the relevant section from the Federalist Papers has already been posted. You can continue living in ignorance as an adult or you can make an honest effort to continue learning. Have some self-respect at the very least.

I’m living in ignorance because I can legally buy guns in the country I live in but I don’t interpret the 2 amendment the same way a nwo shill such as yourself does?

Tlatoani said Colorado has fu*ked up infrastructure? Pragmatically, a gun ban seems easier to accomplish than funding large infrastructure projects.

It's not... infrastructure spend in guaranteed to happen. Gun conversations are essentially useless. They are ideological debate not functional changes

Account001 said It's not... infrastructure spend in guaranteed to happen. Gun conversations are essentially useless. They are ideological debate not functional changes

Well then if the spending is guaranteed, I'm sure they can and chew gum at the same time.

Tulsa race massacre 1921 is why we need guns

Tlatoani said Well then if the spending is guaranteed, I'm sure they can and chew gum at the same time.

The myth of multi tasking