Colorado proposed legislation: Semi-auto ban

[4V50 Gary]

They are putting a lot of pressure behind the scenes and they think they can turn one of the 2 democrats but they need more and more voices to speak.

The hearing is scheduled for Monday.

If you choose to use either link below it's been urged to use facts about the toxicity of the bill not just it violates the 2nd. A big one is giving the CO DA the ability to amend the law to add things after passage....Say getting rid of grandfathering.

Here is how you can help below.
Write the various CO reps

On-line petition: https://speak4.app/lp/tp01vnl9/?ts=1737650129

and if you wish to testify (including zoom) or write a letter:

https://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/cl.../NewSignIn.xsp

[4V50 Gary]

It's now Colorado Senate Bill No. 3

If you're a Coloradan, you can write Gov. Polis

https://speak4.app/lp/hf01lsuk/?utm_...d=7bmxv03ex29k

[heyjoe]

do you have a link to the bill?

[4V50 Gary]

Summation here: https://legiscan.com/CO/bill/SB003/2025

Acutal text: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/defau...25a_003_01.pdf

[44 AMP]

I read through the definitions section, and found a curious exemption.

The proposed law would include "gas operated" handguns with detachable magazines, exempting .22 calibers (that do not have separate upper and lower receivers) but including blow back operated pistols.
This would make AR .223 pistols and virtually every .25, .32, .380, and even some rare 9mm pistols prohibited to make, sell, or transfer. IT would also ban the Desert Eagle, as it is gas operated.

Also, and curiously, the proposed law specifically exempts recoil operated pistols. SO, all the standard duty class pistols are exempt. How curious...

It also includes the usual exemptions exempting govt agencies and their personnel, police, military, corrections officers, and employees of companies who operate armored car businesses....

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 44Amp

Also, and curiously,...

In other words, it's all but written for the singular purpose of banning AR-15 pistols, with a little peripheral damage they don't mind having anyway.

[44 AMP]

In other words, it's all but written for the singular purpose of banning AR-15 pistols,...

No, its written to ban gas operated pistols, with specific language to include the AR pistols which would otherwise been exempt under their .22 caliber exemption. AND, since they have included (for the first time in history) blowback actions as "gas operated", this also allows them the benefit of being able to ban nearly all small pocket guns, with bores larger than .22 that aren't locked breech recoil operated.

This would (in theory) allow them to take the most common "crime guns" off the street. All the .25s, .32s and .380s that are blowback operated would be banned. AR pistols would be banned. The bill isn't written to only get the AR class guns, its written to get a lot more than that, with special language included to ensure the AR can't be exempted.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

No, its written to ban gas operated pistols, with specific language to include the AR pistols which would otherwise been exempt under their .22 caliber exemption. AND, since they have included (for the first time in history) blowback actions as "gas operated", this also allows them the benefit of being able to ban nearly all small pocket guns, with bores larger than .22 that aren't locked breech recoil operated.

But a semi-auto pistol with a locked breech is no more and no less "gas operated" than a semi-auto pistol with a blowback action. The locked breech doesn't introduce anything to the action beyond the recoil energy from the fired round -- all it does is delay the point in the cycle when the chamber parts company with the breech face.

[44 AMP]

But a semi-auto pistol with a locked breech is no more and no less "gas operated" than a semi-auto pistol with a blowback action. The locked breech doesn't introduce anything to the action beyond the recoil energy from the fired round -- all it does is delay the point in the cycle when the chamber parts company with the breech face.

You know this. I know this, The entire firearms world knows this. I'd be willing to bet that the people who wrote the CO bill know this!

But what they chose to write does not reflect this, and I can only assume it was deliberate.

They are laying a variation of the "assault weapon" linguistic trap. They define X as an evil thing, and whey we argue, no, "its not, they all do X", expecting them to recognize the truth and say "ah, ok X is not an evil thing" their response is "ok, they're ALL evil things".

No doubt if this passes and stands, establishing in law that "gas operated" firearms are banned, the next step is to state a technical truth, that all firearms are "gas operated" in the sense that it is the powder gas that propels the bullet, and since we have a legal precedent that gas operated guns may be banned, then ALL firearms may be banned because they operate on gas.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The bill isn't written to only get the AR class guns, its written to get a lot more than that, with special language included to ensure the AR can't be exempted.

I suppose that depends on which "direction" one reads the intent from.

Your interpretation gives them more benefit of the doubt, in a sense, that they are actually trying to address "crime guns" and include ARs as more of an "also available".

Not unreasonable, but in the current political climate where basically every anti-gun policy revolves around the evils of "assault weapons", and given that the one thing we can always be sure of is that whatever the politician says is their rationale, is most certainly, definitely not their rationale, I find it more likely that coming in from the other direction is their true objective....

This is very much like the reason that suppressors ended up on the NFA. There was no real reason, it was a power grab where they knew at that time that they couldn't get handguns and no one really cared about suppressors, so they took them while the taking was good.

I find it highly likely that AR pistols are the true target, they threw in whatever else they could get, like always, and made exceptions to seem "reasonable".

[44 AMP]

None of it seems reasonable to me.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well, I certainly agree with that assessment.

[4V50 Gary]

It passed.

[FunGramps]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

It passed.

Washington state will be next. Colorado, Oregon and Washington are in competition to see who can do the most damage to the second amendment. Looks like Colorado will take the#1 spot from Washington.
Watch AR and AK sales and prices escalate in places on the brink of doing the same.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

It passed.

Note that it was sponsored 100% by democrats and passed almost completely on party lines, with 86% of democrats voting yes and 100% of republicans voting no.

I find it exceedingly unlikely that this survives legal challenge but, as I've said before, they don't care. It's law for now, and if it's struck down they'll just change a few sentences and pass it again.

[FunGramps]

Originally Posted by 4V50 Gary

It passed.

Colorado passed gas.

[Brian Pfleuger]

We need to split into two states... They can have a 15 mile wide North/South strip centered on Denver. The rest of the state stays with We The People.

[bamaranger]

Colorado has the same issue as some other states. The bulk of the population lies in the urban/suburban areas and the bulk of the land lies in the remainder of the state. The population numbers win the election processes and the people in the rural country side can't win a vote......and get pretty darn frustrated.

PA, CA, NV maybe MN and MI all come to mind.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by bamaranger

Colorado has the same issue as some other states. The bulk of the population lies in the urban/suburban areas and the bulk of the land lies in the remainder of the state. The population numbers win the election processes and the people in the rural country side can't win a vote......and get pretty darn frustrated.

PA, CA, NV maybe MN and MI all come to mind.

NY....


Yeah, and what's funny it that it's the perfect microcosm of what we would have nationwide without the electoral college but people want to do away with the college.

[44 AMP]

Add WA and OR to that list and, of course NY. There are others.

[1972RedNeck]

Add WA and OR to that list and, of course NY. There are others.

Judging by nationwide election maps by county, I would say every state except WV and OK have that problem.

[FunGramps]

I'm happy to announce that the constitution of the state of Idaho still maintains a law which requires men ages 18-40 to sign up for the state militia.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by FunGramps

I'm happy to announce that the constitution of the state of Idaho still maintains a law which requires men ages 18-40 to sign up for the state militia.

Yeah? So what.
So does Colorado... and you don't even have to sign up. You just "are".

CO Constitution, Article 17;
Section 1. PERSONS SUBJECT TO SERVICE
The militia of the state shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years; except, such persons as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of the state.

It's been extremely helpful in protecting our 2A rights.

[44 AMP]

I understand a bill restricting ammunition purchase is "locked and loaded" for the CO legislature since the firearms restriction bill passed.

I know the answer is "not until only the govt has guns" but I can't help but wonder, isn't this enough, already!?

Want to cut fraud, WASTE and corruption in the govt? Seems to me gun control laws ought to be near the top of the list.

[Metal god]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this Bill/law a gift to pro second amendment movements , assault weapons bans and pro gun legislation nationwide ? I often say bills like this or the gifts that keep on giving. No way the Supreme Court lets this stand . Which mean no other state will be able to do this or something similar in the future . Like Heller , McDonald and Bruin does , this law potentially has catastrophic consequences to the anti-gun movement . In some ways, I wish more states would get Uber draconian about the second amendment. That way the Supreme Court has no choice but to step in.

My pointer is before Bruin. There was no way in hell I was going to be able to carry concealed in California. Since Bruin, I’ve been carrying every day for the last two years, plus. Yes, it’ll take some time, but I think cases like this will ultimately be a good thing nationwide . Yeah I know you guys in Colorado are kind of screwed for a while, but the only thing I can say to that is just thinking of it as you live in California now. lol