Minimum age to buy assault-style weapons in Colorado would change under proposed law

[turbinetree]

The Democrats who run state government carefully choreograph their gun-safety legislation. This time feels different.

?w=480

By ALEX BURNESS | [e-mail] | The Denver Post
January 28, 2022 at 6:00 a.m.

A Colorado lawmaker whose son was murdered in the Aurora theater shooting of 2012 is proposing a new state law that would raise the minimum age to purchase assault-style weapons from 18 to 21.

Centennial Rep. Tom Sullivan, father of Alex Sullivan, said he’s still working out the specifics of his bill, but that he plans to introduce it this legislative session. Rep. Meg Froelich, a Greenwood Village Democrat, and Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, a Boulder County Democrat, have also signed on as lead sponsors.

Their legislation will not affect weapons designed for sportsmen, they say. Rather, they want to impose stricter limits on guns that are commonly used in mass-death incidents. They may model their definition of “assault weapon” after the one adopted by Boulder, which has its own ban on pistols and semiautomatic rifles with pistol grips, folding or telescoping stocks or any protruding grip allowing a weapon to be stabilized with the non-trigger hand.

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/01/28/minimum-purchase-age-assault-style-weapons/

I wish they would include a bullet tax ...a really, really high bullet tax.....lets say 100%

[multigraincracker]

1. Some people use them for hunting. I say if

you need 30 rounds, you should take up fishing.

[krispos42]

4. Big-game hunting is generally limited to 6 round capacity

Regardless of the type of gun you're using. State law. Some places are that the total magazine capacity can't be more than six, some are you can't load more than six in any magazine you're carrying.

Also, hunters don't spray bullets like soldiers in a firefight. The goal is a quick and ethical kill. A bullet of sufficient construction hitting the vital organs at sufficient speed to kill the animal quickly. That is the goal of big game hunting.

Now that you've been informed I trust you'll stop making that incorrect and flippant remark.

[multigraincracker]

6. I thought it was a correct flippant remark.

Didn't think it needed a "sarcasm" thingy.

[TheRealNorth]

8. 😀

[alittlelark]

10. 'Big Game Hunting' is sick

seriously SICK. There is an aura of 'daddy never loved me' and/or 'I am insecure with my body parts' surrounding the few big game hunters I have met in my life.

[krispos42]

11. Beats factory farming

Free-range, organic, and no antibiotics or hormones added.

[Dial H For Hero]

28. Is it more ethical to pay someone to kill and butcher a cow for you than it is to hunt a deer?

[multigraincracker]

49. The most ethical meat is

fresh roadkill you pick up, gut and butcher yourself, cook on your stove and eat it all.

Just my opinion and I'm weird and I also help you not see dead deer on the side of the road.

[Kingofalldems]

56. Yeah no.

He meant trophy hunting. Are you for that?

[NickB79]

63. In the US, you are required to process ALL big game for meat

It's literally illegal to shoot a deer or elk just for the head.

You get caught dumping a decapitated deer, you lose your guns, get fined AND lose your hunting privileges for years.

If you only want the head, you can donate the meat to food shelves, but it's still eaten.

[Kingofalldems]

64. Again no.

How about elephants? Lions? The kind of thing the Trump spawn go after.

[NickB79]

65. I oppose elephant hunting

They're near-sentient creatures, way too self-aware to hunt or eat IMO. Same as apes, dolphins and whales.

And lions are rapidly becoming an endangered species due to habitat loss, poaching and climate change, so again, no.

[Dial H For Hero]

66. That's not what he said, but I'm happy to address that as well.

Presuming that the species in question has sufficient numbers such that hunting them does not threaten their continued existence, I don’t have any problem with people hunting them regardless of their motivation.

[PTWB]

30. Really?

It's far and away the most ethical and sustainable way to harvest meat for the family.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

48. Assault rifles for fishing? No, that's what hand grenades are for.

Caught and filleted in one easy step.

For legal hunting, there are five-round magazines available.

Bon apetit.

[multigraincracker]

50. Also what angle iron bumpers are for.

[madville]

52. I know here in Florida the limit is 5 round magazines for hunting rifles

So even people hunting with an AR style rifle are required to use a 5 round magazine. My understanding is that most states have a limit on magazine capacity in regards to hunting, like 5 rounds for deer, 3 rounds for ducks or dove, etc.

[NickB79]

62. I'm looking at a .350 Legend AR-15 pistol for deer next year

Minnesota has a loophole where you can use handguns in shotgun-only zones, and for a much longer season. Plus, you can get extra tags to harvest more deer. Organic, lean, free-range meat to stock the freezer.

So, an AR pistol with arm brace is the best way to go, far more accurate than a .357 or .44 revolver, and actually cheaper to buy and shoot. And .350 Legend is as powerful as a .30-30 from a rifle, so relatively easy to shoot out to 150 yards.

Since hunters here figured this out, AR pistol sales have shot way up.

But I doubt I'd load more than 5 rounds in a magazine.

[krispos42]

2. 90% of homicides with guns are done with pistols

But I'm glad to see that Democrats are willing to motivate Republicans to vote this year just in order to stick it to gun owners. : sarcasm:

I mean, it's bad enough that gerrymandering and voter-restriction laws are blooming across the land. But more of this crap?

No lives saved, but I'm sure there will be more anti-abortion laws once SCOTUS rules in the spring and the Repubs run Colorado.

Yay gun control!

[iemanja]

3. Jesus fucking Christ

You're a broken record. Not everyone wants more mass shootings in which a kid kills multiple victims. But you say that's a legitimate cause for the GOP to campaign on.

[krispos42]

5. Sorry the facts don't align with your wishes.

They are persistent things.

Another fact is that I want Democrats running things. I don't want them to lose because of this culture-war bullshit. The concept of "assault weapon" was a dumbass idea when it was birthed in California in the 80's and it's s dumbass idea today.

Either ban all semiautomatic rifles, or work on something else. Don't feed me a line of bullshit that a protruding pistol grip is some kind of deciding factor in whether a rifle is legal.

[iemanja]

7. It makes zero difference for elections

Republicans have been telling voters that Democrats will take their guns for ages. Besides, it's not like fact has any bearing on how Republicans vote. Your argument is hollow.

[krispos42]

9. AP Gore lost Florida by 537 votes, and thus the presidency

Do ya think maybe at least 538 people out of the millions that voted in Florida were motivated my Gore's support of the Clinton AWB?

And Democrats have been proving them right. After Sandy Hook, which occurred in a state that already has an assault weapons ban on effect, the first thing Democrats did was roll out a new and improved Federal AWB. You'll notice we lost both houses of Congress and the presidency in 2016.

Democrats stormed into Virginia a couple of years ago, passed a whole bunch of gun control bills. The only one that failed was a state AWB. And now Trumpklin or whatever the hell his name is is the governor.

[iemanja]

21. This isn't 2000

Spare me your bullshit. People who oppose gun control oppose Democrats. That is all there is to it. They always have and they always will. There is a reason the GOP is the party of unadulterated evil. Their goal, along with the Russian-financed ARA, is to see America destroyed.

[Polybius]

27. Joe Manchin opposes gun-control

If he would have ran on supporting an AWB, do you think he would have won re-election?

[iemanja]

33. perfect example

West Virginia is a Republican state that likes conservatives. Manchin isn't an example of a Democrat.

[krispos42]

32. And spare me your broad brush

I don't oppose gun control, I oppose STUPID, INEFFECTIVE CULTURE WAR laws that are presented as "reasonable".

"Assault weapon" bans are stupid ideas, are ineffective ideas, and pander to a segment of the population so the Democrats don't have to address the real problems of violence because "that's socialism" or whatever crap Fux News spews.

It solves NOTHING while hurting Democrats, especially in rural areas.

Here's how it hurts us:

Democrats want to ban rifles that have things like protruding pistol grips, telescoping buttstocks, and flash reducers because "they make the gun to deadly" or "those are weapon of war features".

But here's the twist: it turns out that gun owners KNOW ABOUT GUNS. Gee, whoda thunk? Unpossible! Inconceivable! Nobody could have seen that coming, except nearly everybody.

So when Democrats spew such obvious idiocy as justification for bans and registration, the gun owners immediately discredit whatever Democrats say because they see through the bullshit!

So when we half about other things, more abstract things like income inequality, or Medicare for all, or changing the tax system, it falls on deaf ears.

[iemanja]

35. There has never been a gun control proposal

that you haven't argued against. You always come up with an excuse. It also happens to be the only issue you care about. I can do the math on that one.

[krispos42]

38. Universal background checks I'm okay with

But you didn't ask me, did you?

I'm okay with prohibiting open-carry within city limits.

I'm okay with school buildings being gun-free zones.

I don't think teachers should be armed because I think the damage caused by accidents and thefts will far outweigh any benefit.

I'm lukewarm on red-flag laws because I can see constitutional issues.

I'm okay with annual limits on buying or selling guns. Say, 12 transactions per year. Anything more than than you're running a business and need an FFL of some kind.

[kcr]

29. Your opinions aren't facts

[krispos42]

34. My opinion in my opinion, and up for discussion.

My facts are not. I put up a post in GC&RKBA a month ago full of facts in chart form.

Gun sales per capita are triple what they were in 1986.

TRIPLE.

Whatever you think the gun-control movement is accomplishing... It isn't.

[iemanja]

36. That is because your allies in Putin's NRA

have systematically taken down gun control laws with the help of far-right wing judges.

There is no gun control in America, yet the mere mention of makes you furious. It defies logic. This is the America of blood baths and corpses, just as the gun lobby always wanted. So relax already. No one is coming after your precious guns.

[krispos42]

39. No gun control in America? Ha!

Last time I checked, California had 50,000 words worth of firearms laws on the books.

And like I said... 90% of gun murders are done with handguns. 50% of murders overall are done with handguns!

If you were serious about dropping gun crime you'd be advocating for handgun bans. But you're not. At least not in this thread.

You're all hot and bothered to ban "assault weapons", which are a subset of rifles. Rifles are used to murder in.about 3% of cases, and you're desperate to ban a fraction of those.

You seem to want to do it because you think it will somehow stop mass shootings.

I don't want to do it because it won't help anything but get Republicans motivated! And the people that were going to buy an "assault weapon" still simply buy the closest legal gun they can.

[iemanja]

41. So you support a handgun ban!

Great news! I'm on board. Now go recruit your gun friends to support it.

[krispos42]

42. Not quite.

The question is about you and your goals.

I get that you're sick of gun violence and support and gun-control law that gets proposed. I'm asking you to look at the issue, ask questions, and see how this fits in the broader picture.

Democrats can't advance our life-saving social measures if we're not in control politically. And those social improvements save orders of magnitude more lives than banning assault weapons.

That big crime drop in the 90s was because Democrats expanded women's reproductive rights and took lead out of gasoline a generation earlier, not because of gun-control laws! Those laws saved 15,000 people a year from being murdered since 2000, and millions from being beaten, mugged, carjacked, burgled, robbed, and raped!

Tens of thousands of Americans die annually from insufficient medical care because they don't have insurance. Less than 400 are murdered with rifles.

I know the media fucks things up with their coverage of mass shootings. Their obsession with them for days and weeks afterwards fuels more mass shootings. And because of the internet all news is local, so every event makes the news.

But we need to get into power and hold it for a sustained amount of time in order to make the real changes that change is for the better.

[iemanja]

84. We are in power

and I knew your reference to a hand gun ban was bait and switch. It always is.

[krispos42]

85. We are?

A tie in the Senate, a... 6? seat majority in the House? Biden's agenda is being stalled because two Dems won't play ball because they're fucking idiots being played by the GQP, the embodiment of obstruction is trying to block Biden's as-yet-unannounced SCOTUS pick until 2025, and I think most state governors and legislatures are GQP.

If we're in charge, where is Medicare for All? Where is Build Back Better? Universal pre-K childcare? Where is a federal abortion law? Heck, where is a Federal ban on assault weapons?

The fact is that our majorities are much smaller than they should be because Democrats keep tilting at the assault weapon windmill. And because we're more fractious than the GQP, we can rarely bring that slight majority to bear on any given vote.

And I never did a bait and switch. I pointed out, correctly and factually, that 90% of gun homicides and 50% of all homicides are done with handguns, and that a person that thinks banning things helps crime rates would logically ban handguns first.

[iemanja]

37. Additionally, the fact you claim that there has been gun control

to correlate the rise of guns with is beyond absurd. That same period has seen the demise of gun control and more access to guns. Hence the proliferation and rising murder rate.

What an absurd claim you are trying to make. No logic whatsoever.

[krispos42]

40. Did you look at my thread over there? n't

[SYFROYH]

13. VTech is the largest school shooting on record

3rd largest of any mass shooting.

The shooter used a 22lr pistol with 10 round mags and a 9mm with 15 round mags.

Even if it were possible to get rid of all AR15s and similar rifles, mass shootings would still happen and to terrible effect.

See VTech.

Changing the age to buy AR15s is fine. It wont do anything except soothe the antigun crowd.

[iemanja]

18. So fucking what?

AR-15s have been used in many mass shootings. Just more transparent excuses for why Americans should keep killing one another in as great of numbers as possible.

It's always a bait and switch with you people. You point to one gun to pretend that others shouldn't be proliferated as widely as possible. I get you want no gun control ever. That is why American has become a shithole of mass murder.

[SYFROYH]

83. I said I was fine with the age change for AR15s. Its reasonable.

Last edited Sun Jan 30, 2022, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

It's just not going to do what people want it to do.

I have never said I want no gun control ever.

I support universal background checks a la Toobin-Manchin. If not that then opening up NICS to private sellers.
Training requirements for public carry.
I can even live with NFA-style registry for long guns with detachable mags but without the tax.

[Skittles]

22. "soothe the antigun crowd"

WTF

this reminds me of repuke arguments, nothing can be done!!!

[SYFROYH]

82. I didn't say nothing can be done.

[Kaleva]

14. You don't have an issue with 18 y/o being able to buy this assault weapon?

It appears that the proposed law would not prohibit those under the age of 21 from buying the below killing machine.

[iemanja]

17. I have an issue with anyone buying any of those WMD

but this is the law proposed, and I'm sick of the bullshit excuses for why states should take no action.

[Kaleva]

24. Taking effective action is much better then taking ineffective action.

The proposed law does nothing about the parts of a gun that make it so deadly and concentrates on regulating pistol grips and folding stocks which have killed hardly anyone.

[Fla_Democrat]

31. Not politically

[Dial H For Hero]

26. What does this law accomplish?

An 18 to 20-year-old would still be able to purchase a rifle which is functionally identical to AR-15. What’s more, the parts necessary to convert such a rifle to an “assault weapon” can be ordered through the mail, given that they’re not firearms as such.

[LiberatedUSA]

12. Your add on would flunk it.

What they are trying is the minimum they can do and get something passed. Your add on would kill the bill. If they wanted to bring forward legislation with no chance of passing, they would have asked to ban them all and turn them in.

[turbinetree]

16. I know it would flunk.....but I am like the rep and my experience of,

I guess seeing the director of secondary education of my grade school laying on the ground many years back.....made me hate guns and bullets....he died later from complications from the .22 shot that hit him in the chest...I really believe that bullets should not be sold unless you have liability insurance to buy them....just like they are doing in San Jose, you have to have liability insurance to own a weapon.......about time....

I lived in Colorado and know what it is like to be from that part of the country at least the rep has made a start, after all his child got killed....it's a start for discussion....

[iemanja]

20. It's all an excuse

to make sure as many guns are on the street as possible.

[LiberatedUSA]

45. As far as that is concerned...

…I’ll take gun safety advocates seriously when they start including the cops in their proposed legislation. Until then, it seems those that want to ban guns want the cops they protest for murdering people to be their better armed overlords; which I find insane.

[Skittles]

19. kids need to be protected from books; guns, not so much

more shit from the "pro-life" party

[roamer65]

23. Cant legally drink until 21.

Shouldn’t be able to buy any gun other than a hunting rifle or shotgun before 21.

[Dial H For Hero]

25. That should be 18 as well.

If you’re old enough to enter binding contracts and be conscripted, you’re old enough to order a scotch on the rocks (IMHO).

[Kaleva]

43. 18 to 21 y/o's would still be able to buy this AR15 assault weapon under the proposed law

[Dial H For Hero]

71. But it doesn't have a bayonet lug! I feel safer already....

[Emile]

44. I remember a time when they were outlawed at any age. Lot less mass shootings

back then.

[Kaleva]

46. When was that?

Back when the AWB was in effect, it was legal to buy, sell and own such guns.

[Emile]

47. 1994 - 2004

https://news.wttw.com/2021/03/31/northwestern-study-says-1994-2004-federal-assault-weapons-ban-worked

[madville]

51. That "ban" really only affected the cosmetic appearance

The 1994 AWB “ban” really only affected the cosmetic appearance of new “assault weapon” firearms, not the overall function. They still were semiautomatic, had detachable magazines, same caliber, etc.

You just had to pick which “banned” features you didn’t want on your rifle, like a flash hider, or collapsible stock to make it ban compliant. There were like 5 banned features, collapsible stock, pistol grip, detachable magazine, flash hider/muzzle brake, and something else, you were only allowed two out of the five on any new firearms bought at the time. Most ban compliant guns elected to keep the detachable magazine and pistol grip features.

[Emile]

53. I have a semi automatic 12 gauge and a 12 gauge pump. I have a semi automatic 22 and a lever action

22. Even I know the difference between a gun used for hunting and an assault rifle. The point I made was, mass shootings were rarer during the period there was a assault rifle ban!

[Kaleva]

54. AWB had nothing to do with assault rifles

Assault rifles and assault weapons are not the same thing

[madville]

55. So your theory is that removing

The muzzle device and putting a fixed stock on this style of firearm reduced mass shootings?

I’m not disputing that mass shootings during that time may have gone down, but what evidence is there that basically changing the cosmetic appearance of these rifles caused that?

I can tell you what the AWB did actually do between 1994-2004, it gave us a Republican House of Representatives for the first time since the 1950s.

[Emile]

57. and lifting the ban gave us Sandy Hook!

[madville]

59. That AR-15 would have been compliant with the 1994 AWB

It was legally purchased under Connecticut’s Assault Weapons Ban, which at the time was similar to the 1994 federal “ban”.

The 1994 ban, even if renewed, would not have prevented Sandy Hook because that rifle was a “ban compliant” rifle.

[Emile]

60. We can go back and forth forever. As I pointed out I do know

what a semi automatic firearm is.

[Dial H For Hero]

67. The AWB only banned the sale of newly manufactured assault weapons. Those made earlier than 1994

could still be sold. During the ban there were two kinds of assault weapons, “pre-ban” and “post-ban”. While functionally the same, the limited numbers of pre-ban guns on the market increased in price, but there was no practical difference between the two.

[Emile]

68. So

[Dial H For Hero]

69. So, you said that assault weapons were outlawed during the AWB. This was not the case.

They simply were somewhat more expensive, and pre-ban weapons which were equally lethal were still being manufactured and sold in droves. The AWB accomplished nothing.

[Emile]

70. Less mass shootings is nothing, okay . .

[Dial H For Hero]

72. Correlation is not causation. I challenge you to explain how making bayonet lugs less common

reduced mass shootings.

[Emile]

73. I am not a masterful mathematician, all I know is mass shootings

decline during the period of the ban.

[Dial H For Hero]

74. Understanding that correlation is not causation does not require math.

I simply ask that you explain why you believe that making features such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs less prevalent results in fewer mass shootings.

[Emile]

75. And all I have simply said here and it is a fact mass shootings

declined during the period of the ban. You just want to argue
for no reason.

[Dial H For Hero]

76. I respectfully repeat the question:

You have asserted that making features such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs less prevalent results in fewer mass shootings. What do you believe to be the causal link?

[Emile]

77. Mass shootings declined during the ban.

[Dial H For Hero]

78. I repeat the question (again):

How does making features such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs less prevalent result in fewer mass shootings?

[Emile]

79. Mass shootings declined during the ban.

[Dial H For Hero]

80. At this point all I can conclude is:

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/03e3f180-b93f-41a5-9f93-b395bc3edfd8

[Emile]

81. Like I said earlier, you are looking for an argument

I stand with the President and fact, mass shootings declined during the ban. You are starting to be judgemental.

[pwb]

58. Who is everybody assaulting anyway?

.

[NickB79]

61. In Minnesota we need to be 21 and have a handgun permit to purchase

Not a problem as long as you aren't a criminal.

Takes under 2 weeks to get the permit from your local sheriff, costs nothing (hell, they give you free trigger locks), and it's good for 2 years.