The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 2, 2013, 05:13 PM   #1
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
New Colorado Gun bill bans standard pump shotguns

Here are a couple of links describing a new bill being introduced in the Colorado State Senate.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-firearms-law/
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/03/0...oposed-bill/2/

I was raised in Colorado and am seriously considering going back there. This is completely out of character for the Colorado I knew, and is making me reconsider whether going back there is a good idea.
This bill shows not only a serious anti 2A bias but a complete ignorance as to how a standard pump or auto shotgun works.
What is going on over there?
Who is supporting this sort of craziness? I'd like to contact any legislators on the fence over this and help them understand that this sort of bill can drive people who are job producers to another state. Does anyone know who might be one of these Senators who is on the fence?
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 05:20 PM   #2
UtahHunting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 424
Colorado is in a race against New York, California, and New Jersey to see who can be the first to the bottom and the first to completely ban all guns of any type.

I have never lived in Colorado but have spent several months there at a time with my work and I love the place. I considered relocating there a couple of times. But where it is headed is scary.

I am afraid this is a sign of things to come. Our liberties and rights are being stripped from us right in front of our eyes and at times it feels there is nothing we can do about it. I never thought I would see the day that has come before us, where just by owning a gun people are looking at you like you are a criminal or sex offender.
UtahHunting is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 05:22 PM   #3
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
This ain't gonna happen.
shootniron is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 05:26 PM   #4
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
"This ain't gonna happen." Shootniron, they are apparently amending this bill as we speak, but it shouldn't have gotten this far.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 05:33 PM   #5
shootniron
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Posts: 1,147
Quote:
but it shouldn't have gotten this far.
I agree...who would have thought that it would...
shootniron is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 05:53 PM   #6
Maxb49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2007
Location: Jamestown, New York
Posts: 256
This sounds familiar...
Maxb49 is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 06:06 PM   #7
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
There are whole sections of the Colorado economy that are dependent on hunting and the tourism that is a part of it. These legislators being appallingly self destructive.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 06:10 PM   #8
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,917
What's happening, it seems, is that any success at all for the anti-gun folks is spurring them to go for their entire wish list. CO has been passing (to my knowledge, they haven't yet been signed into law, but I haven't been paying as close attention as others) laws restricting magazines and maybe even other things. This gets them thinking they can get other things done.

The bad thing is that in those places where pro-freedom forces have not been able to maintain an effective presence in the state legislatures the citizens have been losing rights (exhibit A: NY).

The good thing is that in other places the people are recognizing the true face of the gun control crowd- they aren't wanting JUST "common sense" or "reasonable" regulations... they want the whole enchilada; a complete ban on everything and anything. The more they try for that, the more people recognize the true agenda and oppose it.
Technosavant is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 08:42 PM   #9
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,999
At our LGS in Washington state the other day, an older gentleman was watching all the activity, ammo buying, AR queries, etc., etc., with a smile on his face. I started chatting with him: he thinks anything other than his two-barrel shotgun is rediculous and it wouldn't bother him one bit if the other stuff was banned. He did not like it when I told him his shotgun was going to be taken away from him, and will be a lot easier to get it once all the bad, evil semi-autos are gone. There are a lot of folks like that out there.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 09:37 PM   #10
sunaj
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2013
Location: California
Posts: 84
Wow that's truly unnerving,
Ca. criminals (thats politicians) are now considering banning/confiscating semi-automatics, imposing a licensing scheme, tracking ammo, requirement for gun owners to buy liabilty insurance and the like,
good luck
sunaj
sunaj is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 10:38 PM   #11
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,319
I got home from work and began browsing over at MDShooters when I encountered a thread on this topic. At the time I read the CBS article, there were almost 4000 comments. Needless to say, I couldn't have read more than a few (OK, I'm a sucker! I read closer to 2 hundred, before I shut that window).... The overall tenor of the comments were, um, "unruly," to say the least.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 11:25 PM   #12
budoboy
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2011
Location: Northern CO
Posts: 38
I'm in CO, I just bought a used Mossberg 500a and I'm a little confused. The bill as it stands right now says "CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT CAN BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION OR MORE THAN EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS.

As far as I can tell, the Mossberg 500a does not have commercially available options for extending the magazine beyond 8 rounds. Does that mean it can't "be readily converted"?

Again, if you have basic mechanical or machining skills, you could make a tube magazine hold 50 rounds(although it would be quite long), but the average Joe user isn't going to fabricate something like that.

Who knows what the "amendment" they will introduce on Monday says. My guess is it will exclude tube fed shotguns. The ones they really want to get rid of are the detachable magazine shotguns(Saiga, etc.).
budoboy is offline  
Old March 2, 2013, 11:58 PM   #13
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
You're right about your 500 not accepting magazine extensions.
It's pretty easy to switch out the magazine tube however from what I've heard. My guess is that counts as "readily converted".

The more I think about this the more irritated I am. It takes a great deal of arrogance and willful ignorance to write a bill limiting the workings of a complex mechanical object that you and apparently everyone on your staff is totally unfamiliar with.
If you don't even know how much you don't know, yet you are perfectly willing to try to write laws concerning these things you clearly have no knowledge of, what does that make you?
I'm trying very hard to civil in my descriptions of these law makers, but they themselves make it difficult.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 12:10 AM   #14
Tickling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2011
Posts: 181
Quote:
It takes a great deal of arrogance and willful ignorance to write a bill limiting the workings of a complex mechanical object that you and apparently everyone on your staff is totally unfamiliar with.
It would be a tall order for legislators to be experts in everything they write bills for, since it can be anything from health, economics, environmental, etc.

Usually they have expert testimony, etc., however..
Tickling is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 01:14 AM   #15
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
"Usually they have expert testimony, etc., however.." That was mostly what I meant Tickling, you and I agree.
If I'm going to write, let's say a bill about Diesel engine emissions, when the new super doohicky is attached supposedly it makes the emissions harmless. I would sit down with a diesel mechanic and ask about retrofitting, how it actually works, why it does what it does etc. Then as I was writing the bill I would run every technical part of it past him. I'd probably ask for a second opinion from another mechanic just to make sure afterwards.
This would not be difficult, and would keep me from looking like, well, like these guys look now.
My Mom the ER nurse had a very sharp tongue at times. I heard her say to someone, who was being a jerk at the time, that if she did her job as badly as he was doing his people would die.
This very much seems to apply in this case.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 01:42 AM   #16
Tickling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2011
Posts: 181
I imagine they did call in some experts. It MIGHT be an oversight, or might just have been a way to pass an underhanded ban and people noticed.

Feeling still run strong over Columbine, and one of the shooters at least, used a shotgun. Not to mention environmental groups have been decrying shotguns for years.

Then again maybe I'm just going tin-foiled on this one...

Quote:
heard her say to someone, who was being a jerk at the time, that if she did her job as badly as he was doing his people would die.
Sounds like your mother was a sharp lady.
Tickling is offline  
Old March 3, 2013, 04:15 AM   #17
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
I want to address this post to all of you wing men out there, you know, the ones who, in 1994, stated that their shotguns were safe so why should they worry about "assault weapons."

Well, your time has come. You are now the target. While you should have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us in 1994 you decided to cling to your "hobby" with only your own interests in mind. You shunned us as conspiratorial nutcases.

Well, how do you feel now. We are looking quite prescient aren't we?

You let us down then; but we will not let you down now. We will go to the mat with the same fervor we have always demonstrated when our own rights, liberties, and property were under threat just as they are now, again, today.

The one thing that I have always carried with me is this: The best, and surest, way to lose my own rights and freedoms is to gleefully celebrate the abrogation of the rights and freedoms of others -- especially "those people".

Well, now you are "those people" and we will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you -- as you should have done with us. We will fight for your right to your shotgun with the same passion we have fought for our rifles, handguns, and magazines while you stood on the sidelines.

You let us down in 1994. We will not let you down in 2013.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 11:31 AM   #18
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,544
Did Remington get on board with other gun company's that refuse to sell to states who ban guns or accessories?

If so how is this going to affect all the LE agencies who use the 870?
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 02:01 PM   #19
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,844
Politicians haven't written a bill in decades at least. Special interest groups hand them a completed bill to submit.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 03:14 PM   #20
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 875
Quote:
Did Remington get on board with other gun company's that refuse to sell to states who ban guns or accessories?

If so how is this going to affect all the LE agencies who use the 870?
I have not heard Remington officially take a stance one way or the other.

Simple, in typical elitist fashion, they (government) specifically exempt themselves from any of these restrictions.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 03:29 PM   #21
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
iraiam, have you heard any updates about this bill? Supposedly they are going to modify the language so that it doesn't cast this wide of a net.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 03:36 PM   #22
iraiam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 875
I have not heard today, the only copies I have found on-line are in it's original form, which was a 10 round limit on magazines, and 5 rounds on shotgun magazines, but this is not the language that passed the House.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason
iraiam is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 07:45 PM   #23
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 338
Quote:
I'm in CO, I just bought a used Mossberg 500a and I'm a little confused. The bill as it stands right now says "CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING, OR THAT CAN BE READILY CONVERTED TO ACCEPT, MORE THAN FIFTEEN ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION OR MORE THAN EIGHT SHOTGUN SHELLS.

As far as I can tell, the Mossberg 500a does not have commercially available options for extending the magazine beyond 8 rounds. Does that mean it can't "be readily converted"?

Again, if you have basic mechanical or machining skills, you could make a tube magazine hold 50 rounds(although it would be quite long), but the average Joe user isn't going to fabricate something like that.

Who knows what the "amendment" they will introduce on Monday says. My guess is it will exclude tube fed shotguns. The ones they really want to get rid of are the detachable magazine shotguns(Saiga, etc.).

Receiver retrofit to accept Saiga mags?

http://www.blackacestactical.com/
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 07:53 PM   #24
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Wow. I didn't even know you could do that. Technology is just going to keep defeating definitions no matter what they are.
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old March 4, 2013, 07:57 PM   #25
budoboy
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2011
Location: Northern CO
Posts: 38
PNAC - Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I should have broadened my search for Mossberg 500 options to include detachable magazine mods.

I wanted to add though that the bill in question talks about the modification of the magazines themselves not about modifying the gun. Using the kit above, the newly converted shotgun would have to use detachable magazines that adhere to the 8 round limit.

As I see it, the gray area is whether or not a tubular or permanently attached magazine is actually considered THE firearm.

Last edited by budoboy; March 4, 2013 at 09:39 PM.
budoboy is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12992 seconds with 9 queries