Colorado (And Other States) Pushing California-like Gun Control

[TrappedinCalifornia]

I found this piece in one of the news rotations today and I wish it were an April Fool's joke. The headline talks about Colorado, but it's more of a 'review' of what has been happening nationally, using Colorado as a vehicle for the tour. In fact, it's primary point seems to be that California's ludicrous new laws are being taken nationwide insofar as Liberal states being willing to implement or attempt to implement them.

Colorado Dems push sweeping gun control laws that are flying under national radar: 'Public is fed up'

...State Democrats are pushing a gun control blitz this year, including a bill that would ban so-called "assault weapons," which is typically understood as a semi-automatic rifle, like an AR-15; enact an 11% tax on gun and ammunition sales; and increase standards for concealed handgun training classes. Another bill would prohibit gun owners from carrying in "sensitive" areas, such as parks, banks and college campuses.

The bills are under consideration by lawmakers in the state?s General Assembly, where the Democratic Party controls both chambers. The state?s governor, Jared Polis, is also a Democrat, meaning the party has a Democratic trifecta in the Centennial State...

The "assault weapons" ban bill, combined with a bill that would assess gun and ammo sales with an 11% tax and a bill that would prevent legal gun owners from carrying guns in areas defined as "sensitive," such as college campuses, parks and places of worship, resembles legislation signed into law in California.

The Golden State earlier this year called on a federal circuit court to reverse a lower court's decision on California's ban on semi-automatic weapons after the law was found unconstitutional. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last year also signed into law an 11% state tax on guns and ammo and another bill that prevents gun owners from carrying in areas described as "sensitive." California is the only state in the nation with the additional tax...

If you think a $1,000 fine for not registering your firearms is onerous, check out...

...The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic state representatives Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernandez, both from Denver, defines an "assault weapon" as a "semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine, and has one or more of the following characteristics," including features such as a pistol grip or thumbhole stock and "any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.

"The bill defines the term 'assault weapon' and prohibits a person from manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, or transferring ownership of an assault weapon," the bill's summary states. "The bill further prohibits a person from possessing a rapid-fire trigger activator. A person in violation of the prohibitions will be assessed a first-time penalty of $250,000 and $500,000 for each subsequent violation."

Hernandez said the bill becoming law would protect the community from mass shootings...

They talk about the negative impacts to women, low-income, etc. They talk about it being a 'sin tax,' where self-defense isn't a sin, but a fundamental aspect of the 2nd Amendment per SCOTUS. They talk about decreased gun ownership being linked to higher crime rates. You know, all those things we talk about.

It has been said that as California goes, so goes the nation. Yet, what we get is a 'tsk, tsk... California is crazy' from other states. Or, we get enthusiastic, even nigh unto 'zealous,' support with little by way of actual understanding of how things work in this State beyond calling Liberal politicians evil and crazy, citing that it isn't happening in other states. What we don't seem to be getting is a whole lot of help from sources that can actually do something. Well, at least not timely or effective help.

Worse, many feel that moving is the answer. The problem, as I perceive it, is that moving simply delays your pain. It doesn't seem to prevent it. In fact, if you think things are 'bad' under Biden, imagine a scenario where someone like Newsom ascends to the Presidency and gets a Democrat-controlled Congress.

It's a time when whatever 'response' we come up with is going to involve risk. If we register our guns, the risk is what comes next... fees, continued removal of our ability to keep and bear arms. If we don't register our guns... fines, confiscation... continued removal of our ability to keep and bear arms. If we register some, but not others... guilty until you can prove innocence, fines... continued removal of our ability to keep and bear arms.

If we don't (or can't) put the brakes on here in California, clearly, it will spread to the rest of the nation and no state will remain a safe haven forever. But, how do we slow it down, let alone stop it? The question has even arisen as to whether it is, effectively, 'unstoppable' as the generations and the population change to something we don't know how to deal with.

Let's just say that I'm discouraged and am lamenting that discouragement. By no means am I giving up or throwing in the towel. However, I also recognize that my best 'fighting days' are in the past and effective reinforcement/replacement is going to be needed.

So... Where are you at in your thinking?

[Preston-CLB]

Trapped. I read that full article this morning and it filled me with dread. These states that are following the CA pattern will pass those laws and in turn weaken the protection afforded by the 2A on an increasingly national scale.

The thought of Newsom ascending to the White House fills me with profound apprehension, as does CA's SB2 and SB1160 among other dreadful gun laws.

Newsom has even said he would push for an amendment to the constitution that would all but negate the 2A. This man is more dangerous than any other Dem.

As discussed in the SB1160 thread here at CG, there is nothing in that bill that would limit the cost of initial registration and subsequent renewals going forward, nor is it stated what the dollar amounts are. It could be any amount.

The states that are currently Red or Purple need to vigilant. It doesn't take much in today's climate for anti-gun zealots to attempt to ram though CA-like laws. Case in point is Virginia where some 30 new gun laws were vetoed by Youngkin last week.

All that we as law abiding gun owners can do is fight for our rights in any way we can. There is already a concerted effort to derail SB1160 by CRPA and others, and we're still fighting other laws already in effect in the courts. We've had some significant wins, but we're not there yet. We have to keep our eye on the ball, and not behind th the 8 Ball.
-P

[AlmostHeaven]

I think your concerns are all incredibly well-founded, naturally, as California and New York gun control "innovations" have spread from 7 to 13 states over the past decade.

I have one core objection to a part of your post - the implication that moving does not constitute a sustainable strategy. On the contrary, I believe tactical relocation forms the basis of the only viable non-violent path to preserving the Second Amendment.

Consider the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. The approximately 6 million Trump voters in California, more than the entire electorates of the fifteen least-populous states combined, effectively wasted their ballots. In stark contrast, the seven swing states, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, went in either direction by mostly less than 0.1 million votes each. Swing state Senate elections, which control the keys to the judiciary, frequently land on either side by even smaller numerical margins.

Therefore, while each individual cannot make much difference alone, even a small fraction of conservatives living in Democrat-dominated states, where their votes matter as much as a desk fan blowing against a hurricane, could tilt the presidency and Senate by moving to swing states. Indeed, this has already occurred in Florida, which due to a massive influx of right-leaning retirees, has shifted from perennial bellwether to safely Republican.

Conservatives living in California, Washington, Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and other similar Democratic supermajority states have the numbers to stop a President Newsom from coming into existence, fifty times over. The challenge comes from how do Republicans get a proportion of them to move to swing states and empower their votes.

[cz74]

I remember browsing the discussions over at the Expats forum few years ago, the folks who "escaped" to Washington state thinking they were "safe"; Look up the biographies of Biden's latest implants to the 9th Circus, it is crazy how these blatant far left radicals are now federal appeals court judges. Trump put 10 judges to the 9th, Biden is currently at 8. If conservatives don't flip this election and the senate/house, this country will be gone before the decade ends.

[AlmostHeaven]

West Virginia, Montana, and Ohio voters need to avoid splitting their tickets this November.

[Jimi Jah]

Irish democracy.

[Silence Dogood]

I share this concern for our future.

I think one key to our success is unifying gun owners in support of 2A protections. Standing together in support of all 2A issues, not just the ones that affect us, and fighting these issues as soon as they come up in whatever jurisdiction that may be, again not just if we live there is crucially important.

I recently started a post about the California suppressor ban and this morning I added to the thread on Rigby which is a Delaware case relating to serialization, self made firearms, and 3d printing files. We should all be fighting these fights. We should all be in support of 2A in cases like that even when we cannot participate/ they "do not affect me" because 2A infringement like a cancer is insidious and it affects us all.

Unifying us will be a challenge. Like the fathers' rights movement which historically faced great difficulty unifying due to the diversity of their ranks (single-divorced fathers, adoptive-fathers, gay fathers, etc.) gun owners are very diverse, ethnically and politically.


I think a second key to our success is growing the ranks of gun owners in support of 2A protections, or at least citizens in support of those protections. We would benefit from turning the voters who are presently either apathetic to or critical of 2A protections. Just by the numbers, we need people who currently vote (D) and swallow (D) lies about crime/guns/etc. to support 2A protections.

Some might be swayed by learning how they are lied to by the anti-gunners. Some might be swayed by going shooting and becoming gun owners/ competitive/recreational shooters themselves. We need to separate 2A protections from "the right" because we need people (sheeple) who vote (D) to tell their representatives they support 2A, thereby moving the Overton window.

2A only became a partisan issue since in the last 80 years since communism got into the Democratic Party.

[Rickybillegas]

Screenshot_20240404_115017_Chrome.jpg

Saner heads prevailed. It seems some of the worst 'sensitive places' restrictions were gutted from the bill.

[AlmostHeaven]

I share this concern for our future.

I think one key to our success is unifying gun owners in support of 2A protections. Standing together in support of all 2A issues, not just the ones that affect us, and fighting these issues as soon as they come up in whatever jurisdiction that may be, again not just if we live there is crucially important.

I recently started a post about the California suppressor ban and this morning I added to the thread on Rigby which is a Delaware case relating to serialization, self made firearms, and 3d printing files. We should all be fighting these fights. We should all be in support of 2A in cases like that even when we cannot participate/ they "do not affect me" because 2A infringement like a cancer is insidious and it affects us all.

Unifying us will be a challenge. Like the fathers' rights movement which historically faced great difficulty unifying due to the diversity of their ranks (single-divorced fathers, adoptive-fathers, gay fathers, etc.) gun owners are very diverse, ethnically and politically.

I think a second key to our success is growing the ranks of gun owners in support of 2A protections, or at least citizens in support of those protections. We would benefit from turning the voters who are presently either apathetic to or critical of 2A protections. Just by the numbers, we need people who currently vote (D) and swallow (D) lies about crime/guns/etc. to support 2A protections.

Some might be swayed by learning how they are lied to by the anti-gunners. Some might be swayed by going shooting and becoming gun owners/ competitive/recreational shooters themselves. We need to separate 2A protections from "the right" because we need people (sheeple) who vote (D) to tell their representatives they support 2A, thereby moving the Overton window.

2A only became a partisan issue since in the last 80 years since communism got into the Democratic Party.

Urbanization and the proliferation of collectivist cultures incompatible with the founding ethos of America certainly have contributed to the dramatic rise of anti-gun ideology.

I harbor qualified optimism regarding the unity of the Second Amendment community. I remember, a mere ten or fifteen years ago, many people in the gun world did not oppose assault weapons bans and held weak opinions on permissive public carry. So-called fudds like Bill Ruger rushed to preemptively comply with gun control proposals and advocate against civilian ownership of rapid-fire capable weapons.

Over the past decade, the AR-15 platform has grown to become the most popular platform in the United States. Thirty years ago, many firearm dealers considered ordering an AR-15 as weird, and gun community "experts" went to Congress to testify about how anyone who needs more than 6 rounds in a revolver couldn't be trusted with firearms.

I personally have noticed a gradual reduction in the proportion of firearm owners stuck in the old ways of thought and making claims that assault weapons have no legitimate use in self-defense, people who want 17 rounds in their carry pistols need to "train instead of spray", etc.

Even ChatGPT knows about fudds:

In the context of the internet and firearms communities, a "Fudd" refers to a specific type of gun owner with certain attitudes and beliefs about firearms. The term is derived from Elmer Fudd, a character from the Looney Tunes cartoons, who is portrayed as a bumbling hunter.

A "Fudd" is typically seen as a gun owner who holds traditional and conservative views about firearms and the Second Amendment but may not be supportive of certain types of firearms or accessories that they deem as "tactical," "military-style," or "high-capacity." They often prioritize hunting and sport shooting and may not see the need for firearms that are designed for self-defense or personal protection.

Characteristics of a "Fudd" may include:

Opposition to "Black Rifles": They may express skepticism or even opposition to modern sporting rifles (commonly referred to as "AR-15s" or "assault weapons"), which are semi-automatic rifles with military-style features.

Limited Understanding of Firearms Terminology: They might use imprecise or outdated terminology when discussing firearms, showing a lack of familiarity with modern firearm technologies.

Focus on Hunting and Sporting: "Fudds" may emphasize hunting, traditional sporting, and marksmanship over other aspects of firearm ownership and use.

Dismissal of Modern Accessories: They may view certain firearm accessories, such as optics, lights, and adjustable stocks, as unnecessary or "tactical" rather than practical.

Resistance to Change: "Fudds" may prefer traditional firearms and shooting methods and may be resistant to adopting newer technologies and shooting styles.

[Silence Dogood]

I harbor qualified optimism regarding the unity of the Second Amendment community. . .

As do I. In just the last six years, I have seen this transition take place at a good, locally owned, CA FFL who in 2018 told me that they don't carry AR lowers (or completes) but they'd be happy to transfer one if I ordered it from another FFL to now carrying a handful of California compliant ARs on the rack, some featureless, some fixed.

I am cautiously optimistic because I wonder if the window has just shifted and the number of fuds still remains detrimental. A quorum is now comfortable with semi-auto rifles but are we all comfortable with unserialized home builds and with accessories that make a gun emulate a MG while remaining statutorily not a MG?

I do not know the answer but I trust that the first step to coming to intelligent consensus is having the conversation.

Incidentally AlmostHeaven, you are hipper that I am to have access to ChatGPT. Bravo sir.

I noticed two things about that that bear mentioning:

Firstly, the algorithm describes the fud of the past, not the fud of the present, conspicuously omitting any reference to bumpstocks, "ghost guys", and the word "trigger" entirely.

Secondly, it makes use of a error in composition logic that seems common among anti-gunners:

Opposition to "Black Rifles": They may express skepticism or even opposition to modern sporting rifles (commonly referred to as "AR-15s" or "assault weapons"), which are semi-automatic rifles with military-style features.

It should be "opposition to AR-15s (commonly referred to as "modern sporting rifles" or "assault weapons"). . ." since MSR and AW are both genres whereas AR-15 is a model or alternatively, if one were to rephrase the sentence: "opposition to modern sporting rifles (commonly referred to as "assault weapons", e.g. AR-15s and AK-47s). You understand my point I'm sure.

[AlmostHeaven]

Duplicate

[AlmostHeaven]

As do I. In just the last six years, I have seen this transition take place at a good, locally owned, CA FFL who in 2018 told me that they don't carry AR lowers (or completes) but they'd be happy to transfer one if I ordered it from another FFL to now carrying a handful of California compliant ARs on the rack, some featureless, some fixed.

I am cautiously optimistic because I wonder if the window has just shifted and the number of fuds still remains detrimental. A quorum is now comfortable with semi-auto rifles but are we all comfortable with unserialized home builds and with accessories that make a gun emulate a MG while remaining statutorily not a MG?

I do not know the answer but I trust that the first step to coming to intelligent consensus is having the conversation.

Incidentally AlmostHeaven, you are hipper that I am to have access to ChatGPT. Bravo sir.

I noticed two things about that that bear mentioning:

Firstly, the algorithm describes the fud of the past, not the fud of the present, conspicuously omitting any reference to bumpstocks, "ghost guys", and the word "trigger" entirely.

Secondly, it makes use of a error in composition logic that seems common among anti-gunners:


It should be "opposition to AR-15s (commonly referred to as "modern sporting rifles" or "assault weapons"). . ." since MSR and AW are both genres whereas AR-15 is a model or alternatively, if one were to rephrase the sentence: "opposition to modern sporting rifles (commonly referred to as "assault weapons", e.g. AR-15s and AK-47s). You understand my point I'm sure.

The Overton window regarding the breadth of Second Amendment protections has shifted positively towards more liberty in the gun community, but more work and advocacy remain. The fight to preserve freedom, American values, and the Constitution never ends!

[Jimi Jah]

Colorado is a case of two states.

One is the socialist flatlanders, the other is the mountain folks. Sheriffs in the Rockies tend to ignore the stringent laws of the flatlanders. I always get great treatment from them. Even so, I leave the AR's home and bring the lever rifles when visiting the high country.

[aklon]

My friends and family in other states used to laugh at California. I told them laugh while you can, this rot is coming to you and it's coming soon.

Now my friends and family aren't laughing any more because it's happening to them.

[Rickybillegas]

They rolled back the sensitive places to where they come close to making sense. Not sense, but much closer to reality. Only polling places, gov. buildings and schools are now to be restricted under the gutted bill.

They saw the writing on the wall that these sensitive place laws are going to fall for good probably in the next two years, or sooner.