Hunters Begin Boycott Over Colorado Gun Laws

[Peter cotton]

http://www.kktv.com/news/elections/headlines/Hunters-Begin-Boycott-Over-Colorado-Gun-Laws-200225811.html

Since signing new gun control legislation into law last week, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has attracted his share of detractors.

Hunters across the country are now boycotting Colorado because of the recent legislation.

Michael Bane, a producer for The Outdoor Channel, announced he will no longer film his four shows in Colorado, and hunters are joining the protests. It's reportedly a small number, but growing.

Colorado ammunition magazine manufacturer Magpul Industries said last week that they plan to relocate to other states.

The new laws require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. Hickenlooper, a gun rights advocate, said he felt more controls were needed in the aftermath of shootings in Connecticut and Aurora, Colo.

[joeybee12]

1. Fuck them...if they can't see the need for such legislation they can go

fuck themselves.

[ellisonz]

61. +1

[Earth_First]

2. lol @ "hunting"

If 'hunting' has become an exercise in stalking farm-raised game on a fenced ranch; then sure, we'll call it hunting...

[Archaic]

15. With staff to recover the animal, dress, prepare and cook it...

[kelliekat44]

99. This ought to be good for Colorado. Will be safer and have more game. nt

[Scuba]

3. I don't know any hunters who will be offended by Colorado's gun laws ....

Sure, there will be a few gun nuts who also hunt, but the vast majority of hunters know that "fair chase" precludes use of high-firepower weapons.

[denverbill]

4. Pretty worthless hunters if they need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer. Good riddance.

[onehandle]

5. Today's stealth super-deers are not your grandfather's deer.

They are armor plated and armed to the teeth with hunter seeking missiles and chainsaws.

Well... They should be.

[slackmaster]

10. 30-round magazines have NEVER been legal for hunting in Colorado. You should know that.

Hunting is not the issue.

[kestrel91316]

21. Numerous gun nutters on DU have said that hunters use assault weapons and big mags

all the time.

I, of course, just laugh. My dad used a plain hunting rifle to get his deer, and he only needed one or at most two bullets to do it.

[slackmaster]

30. Only for hunting varmints.

Not deer. Every state has a magazine capacity limit for deer.

I, of course, just laugh. My dad used a plain hunting rifle to get his deer, and he only needed one or at most two bullets to do it.

When my dad was seven years old, his mother would give him three rounds of .22 ammo and tell him not to come home until he had two jackrabbits. He usually came home with three jackrabbits. Marksmanship is a great skill to have, and having a large magazine doesn't help if you miss and your prey bolts.

[Peter cotton]

38. Arizona does not restrict magazine capacity for hunting. It also allows suppressors (silencers)

for use in hunting.

[sl8]

100. Are you sure?

From http://www.azgfd.gov/regs/mainregs.pdf :

Wildlife may only be taken by a device or method as prescribed by the Commission. It is unlawful to take wildlife with a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds. It is unlawful to take migratory game birds with an unplugged shotgun capable of holding more than three rounds.

[Peter cotton]

111. It's a very recent change, it only took effect last year.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117225047

[sl8]

112. Thank you. n/t

[frylock]

31. yep. my old man used a bolt action 30-30.

[Recursion]

44. Assault weapons are fairly popular for small game. Big magazines are usually illegal for hunting

Except for "pest" situations like groundhogs or feral pigs.

I keep hearing about people rechambering an AR15 to shoot a powerful-enough round that they can then go hunt deer, but I still wonder how anecdotal that is.

[pediatricmedic]

57. The states I have hunted in limit magazine size for game animals as well

No more then 5 rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Pest species are not regulated the same, so you can use your 30 round magazines on them. Still seems like a lot of unnecessary weight to carry around with all that ammo.

Then again, I have noticed a trend in hunting that nobody actually goes out on foot anymore, it's all from pickups or ATV's. Maybe the weight isn't an issue if you don't walk more then 50 yards.

[Peter cotton]

60. Both Texas and Arizona allow you to hunt with any number of rounds in the magazine.

[Botany]

6. Less hunting pressure will equal more game ...

.... and that will bring back more hunters.

[bullwinkle428]

7. Sure hope the animals are participating in the boycott as well

and migrating to the states where the hunting activity will now take place.

[otohara]

8. Yay

This makes me happy

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Think I'll be vacationing in Colorado. Won't have to risk being shot

by a hunter there!

[slackmaster]

12. The new laws have no effect at all on what kinds of weapons that people can use for hunting.

Logic fail.

[sadbear]

17. Uhh, if hunters are boycotting Colorado...

[slackmaster]

27. Do you believe they're all going to boycott Colorado, and that nobody who lives there will hunt?

[sadbear]

34. Of course not.

But if we believe these hunters aren't going to be all hypocritical and actually boycott Colorado, then there will be less hunters in Colorado. (Personally, I think they're all full of shit.)

[slackmaster]

36. I see nothing hypocritical in boycotting a state that infringes on peoples' civil rights.

People on DU post about doing that all the time. For example, not vacationing in states that don't recognize same-sex marriages.

It's exactly the same thing from my POV.

[sadbear]

37. It would hypocritical if they called for a boycott, but didn't actually boycott.

Which, again, wouldn't surprise me at all.

[slackmaster]

39. People on both sides of every recent Presidential election have said they'd leave the country...

...if the election didn't go their way.

I doubt that very many of them ever have.

[sadbear]

41. So you think it's a bullshit bluff, too, then?

[slackmaster]

42. Sure, in some cases

Probably not all. Choosing a different destination state for hunting is a whole lot easier than relocating to another country.

[Hoyt]

40. Sorry, guns aren't a "civil right."

[Peter cotton]

45. Neither is a computer.

Both are used in the exercise of civil rights, though...those rights being free speech and self-defense, respectively.

[Hoyt]

53. Defense is not a civil right either. Gun crowd tries hard to equate their poor, pitiful gun plight

to the real Civil Rights Movement. Not even close, and those that try that BS should be ashamed.

[Peter cotton]

55. I think those who argue that people don't have a right to self-defense should be ashamed.

BS indeed...

[Hoyt]

66. Not necessarily with a gun you don't.

[Peter cotton]

67. What are we supposed to use?

[Hoyt]

70. You sound so pitiful asking that question. Jeebus, there are lots of ways beside guns.

[Peter cotton]

71. So what should a senior citizen (just as an example) use?

Pepper spray? Their elite ninja skillz? A can of beans?

[Hoyt]

73. Are you a senior citizen who considers themselves prey?

"Can of beans" can be quiet effective. I knew you sounded familiar.

[Peter cotton]

75. I'm not a senior citizen (yet), but I'm starting to get up there in age; as for being prey...

I'm reminded of the story of someone being pulled over by a police officer, who notices that the driver is carrying a holstered pistol, and has an AR-15 in the gun rack. The officer says, "That's an awful lot of firepower. What are you afraid of?" to which the driver answers with a grin, "Not a damned thing."

I knew you sounded familiar.

Your reputation precedes you.

[Hoyt]

78. First, senior citizens are often on meds that alter judgement.

Second, you don't need a couple of guns to venture out.

Good luck in learning how to live in society as you age. It's a chance to leave behind some of the bad habits of youth, like guns.

[beevul]

88. So are screenwriters. N/T

[bluedigger]

95. I've had good luck with this, until things escalated.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. So why do we have police, courts and prisons?

Presumably to protect citizens albeit after the fact of at least one offense. People do have a right to live their lives without being preyed upon.

[Hoyt]

69. One of many reasons -To keep those with guns from playing jesus, judge, jury, and executioner.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. Except owning a gun is not illegal and never has been except in rare cases.

(And never in a place anyone wants to live, I might add.)

We have police, courts and prisons because people deserve to go about their business without dangerous criminals destroying their lives. Ergo people are entitled to protection. Ergo the idea that people have no right to protection in unfounded.

You may not like the manner people choose to protect themselves but that's not your place to say. Someone may not like what you say or where you say it (I certainly don't) but you're still free to say it even though you pretend you're Jesus by playing judge, jury and criminal advocate.

[Hoyt]

89. Lots of things are legal, but best left undone. I think society has a say.

Someday, maybe you can discuss why you are so concerned about protecting yourself with guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. Except you don't think society has a say because everytime political pressure

builds to NOT affect gun control -- especially gun confiscation -- you complain the system is rigged or there's a gun culture. You arbitrarily disqualify any result you do not approve of. And even if society did support a ban on guns you would be wrong in your insistence there is no inherent right to self-defense.

Someday, maybe you can discuss why you are so concerned about protecting yourself with guns.

There's no need to wait; I'll have that discussion here and now.

[Hoyt]

97. Fine -- why do you live in fear of needing a gun(s)?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. What fear? When I put my seat-belt on I'm not in fear of a car accident.

It's a possibility, hardly a probability, but it is possible. It's not based on fear.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

110. Where do you live, Syria?

You put on a seat belt because you are traveling forty or fifty or sixty miles an hour in a tin-and-glass shell surrounded by other people, whose driving competence is unknown to you, doing the same thing. You'd have to be a complete idiot not to belt up.

So to follow your analogy, you feel that the likelihood of needing your gun is, while maybe not quite equal, somewhere up there with the dangers of driving in a car. No doubt you feel that one would have to be a complete idiot to venture out without a popgun. Is that the case?

I suspect you'll insist that no, you don't think those people who walk around - gasp! - completely unarmed are total idiots. So then you must agree the likelihood of needing a gun and the likelihood of needing a seatbelt are not just unequal but vastly so. And that kind of makes your gun-lovin' seem a bit, well, at odds with reality.

[Paladin]

113. Well said. (nt)

[COLGATE4]

64. and just what infringement of a 'civil right' might that be?

[slackmaster]

65. The right to keep and bear arms. Something explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, unlike...

...the right to a government-sanctioned marriage (which I believe is also a civil right.)

[COLGATE4]

74. Where is the 'infringement' of that civil right?

(The Supreme Court, as well as lower courts throughout the nation have for years and years made clear that the government possess the right to regulate the bearing and posession of arms. Regulation is not infringement. So, if we're not talking about regulation by the government, where is the infringement?

[slackmaster]

83. A reduction in choices available to the individual constitutes an infringement.

[COLGATE4]

87. Nope. Not in the law, anyway.

The government can regulate pretty much to its hearts' content until the regulation becomes a substantial and undue burden on the exercise of the right involved. Nothing Colorado has enacted (or virtually any other state) constitutes that type of burden. No burden - no infringement.

[slackmaster]

102. Regulation isn't infringement. An outright BAN is.

HTH

[COLGATE4]

103. It's only a regulation as to how many rounds

a magazine can hold. A ban would be prohibiting all magazine-loaded firearms (and I suspect that even that would be upheld as within the government's regulatory powers). No ban, no infringement.

[slackmaster]

104. Nonsense. It's a ban on importating or selling magazines that can hold more than the limit.

If the law merely limited the number of rounds a person could put into a magazine, that would be regulation.

If the object itself is prohibited by law, that is a ban.

[COLGATE4]

106. Well, you know the saying that 'everyone is

entitled to his opinion but not entitled to his own facts'. That's the case here. As a practicing attorney for 25 years I'm advsing you that what you assume to be the law is incorrect. Once again - there's no constutional infringement from Colorado's law.

[slackmaster]

109. A ban is a ban. Even machine guns aren't banned at the federal level.

Get a grip on the language.

[COLGATE4]

114. OK. If you say so...

Next time how about citing some case law where a ban like this has been found to be unconstitutional by any court.

[slackmaster]

115. DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago both found handgun bans to be unconstitutional. :-)

DC's Firearms Control Act of 1975 prohibited residents of DC from acquiring any kind of handgun, of course with the usual exceptions for government employees. That provision was found to be unconstitutional. Specifically, the blanket handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.

McDonald effectively incorporated the Heller decision under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Two gun bans, both found to be unconstitutional. Handguns are still regulated in both places, but they are no longer banned.

[COLGATE4]

117. Are you really trying to argue that banning certain magazines

is the same as banning all types of a certain weapon?

[slackmaster]

118. Do you have any rational explanation of why it's not the same thing?

[COLGATE4]

121. Other than to point out the painfully

obvious. Prohibiting the sale of one class of magazine is not the same as prohibiting an entire class of weapon (hand gun). Prohibitions on firearms are as old as the Republic itself. And, as Scalia points out in Heller "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions... on the commercial sale of arms." District of Columbia v Heller, 26.

[brentspeak]

90. So tell us which SCOTUS ruling has said as such.

[slackmaster]

116. Too easy. Please see reply #115.

This is recent history, brentspeak. I'm a little surprised that you are uninformed about it.

[brentspeak]

120. Nope.

From the article:

The new laws require background checks for private and online gun sales and ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Neither case you cited relates to the new Colorado laws. Try again.

[upaloopa]

82. Militia don't for get your right to be in a well

regulated militia. Oh I forgot you gunner Dems side with the tea party when it is convenient.

[sinkingfeeling]

50. They're not going to be there if they're boycotting the state.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Hunting is a sport.

In a sport, you have winners and losers.

For all that matters to me, if you can't hit a deer with a couple of shots out of a traditional pump action shotgun, you lost. The deer won. Realize that fact and go home to hunt another day.

You don't need semi-automatic rifiles with high capacity clips to hunt. I'm sorry, but you don't.

[slackmaster]

13. The magazine capacity limit for deer hunting with rifles in Colorado has always been five rounds

Whether the action is semiautomatic or otherwise.

For shotguns, the limit is three rounds.

The same or similar limits apply in most states, with exceptions for pest control.

[kestrel91316]

22. Deer hunters use rifles out West. Shotguns are for forest hunting of whitetails in the East.

I've never heard of a shotgun being used to hunt deer out West. How on earth would you get close enough to use it?????I think they are pretty worthless at the 100+ yards that is typical range.

[MineralMan]

24. I don't think shotguns are used much in CO for deer hunting.

Around my area, though, they are. It does depend on the terrain. I suppose you could hunt in an Aspen meadow with one in Colorado, though.

[Recursion]

46. Yeah, at least in MS we only ever used shotguns for rabbits and various birds

And then we would have a contest to see who would get the most shot pellets in their stew that week.

Which reminds me, presumably the fact that it's called "buck shot" signifies what people used to use it for, but that astounds me.

[Peter cotton]

47. While buckshot is still occasionally used for deer hunting, its primary purpose these days

is as an anti-personnel load. It's hard to beat 000 buckshot for stopping power within 25 yards.

[otohara]

43. or a Helicopter

I saw the grossest thing ever on the Sportsman Channel - a guy (I think the one that was shot a couple weeks ago) picking off a family of wild pigs with an assault rifle. He must have killed 5 or 6 in a matter of minutes.

Hunting...not what it used to be.

[NickB79]

48. Feral hogs all need to be killed off

They are incredibly destructive to wildlife, crops, and forests in the US. Shooting them should be viewed as more analogous to killing pests than it is to actual game hunting. 5 or 6 pigs killed in a few minutes, you say? Well, that's a good start.

[otohara]

49. This Wasn't About Ridding Texas of Ferrel Pigs

besides, I've read killer/copter excursions are too expensive for most and they aren't doing so well.

This is selling the thrill of a lifetime if you like shooting assault weapons...mowing down animals from the skies isn't about being a good citizen or a great hunter. It's like a video game.

The State of TX should give a grant to an agriculture school and try to come up with a humane solution. Pay people to think our way out of problems.

The gun is not the solution to everything - although many think it is.

[Eleanors38]

92. This is mainly for eradication of hogs for farmers, and

as sport for high-dollar patrons. The objective ecologically is to stem the tide of feral hog proliferation. Further, Texas Parks and Wildlife has been doing the same thing for years.

Hunting is not what it used to be: It's safer and increasingly a tool for problem species. I still use my bolt-action .270 for hunting, but if I were to be on an all night hog hunt, it's an AR with big mag for me. Hands down.

[Eleanors38]

91. Hog control weaponry has gone over to semi-auto rifles...

often with high capacity mags; quite popular in Texas. Of course, one can argue til the cows come home what constitutes "hunting," but the folks who stay up all night with AR 15s, night vision equipment & bugs might consider it fun or a pain in the ass, but it definitely has become a business. And they don't use "Fudd" guns much anymore.

I posted similarly in the open RKBA group, debunking the "unsuitability" myth of semi-auto carbines with big mags. Hunting or no, that is the trend.

Note: from other sources, I've learned that if a hunter/eradicator doesn't get many pigs, he is pulled from the "sport" by the landowner who doesn't care if you use a machine gun.

Ain't no sport to a farmer.

[sadbear]

16. Wow, the good news keeps rolling in for Colorado.

Damn, I wish I could mover there ASAP.

[99Forever]

18. Is there some downside to this?

Bwahahahahahhahahahh.

[bemildred]

19. Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. nt

[Erose999]

20. Gun nuts leaving Colorado? As if I needed any more incentive to move there...

[Kolesar]

29. Fewer gun nuts and *that referendum* from last November

I hear the skiing is nice, too.

[MineralMan]

23. Deer and Elk Applaud Madly!

Yeah, Colorado...you're mean, and we're not going to hunt anymore in your state! Phooey on you!

[RebelOne]

62. I hate hunting, so I applaud along with the deer and elk. n/t

[librechik]

25. good riddance n/t

[Tempest]

26. This is actually very good news

Colorado has for some time had a problem with the number of out of state hunters CO tour guides are bringing into the state.

Few in-state hunters will turn away from hunting from the laws.

[kestrel91316]

28. When I lived in CO we locals were never terribly impressed by the folks who

came into the state for "recreational" purposes and treated the locals like the hired help and then returned to their mansions in Texas or California.

Good riddance to all those pompous asses.

[Kolesar]

33. There's a rivalry between Colorado and Texas going back to the Civil War

The miners formed a militia and kicked some rebel ass. The losers had to walk back to Texas with no food and no shoes.

[Fresh_Start]

32. Colorado should advertise...more game and safer experience for real hunters

keeping -a***oles out of the way should be applauded

[frylock]

35. i thought that gun fuckers hated the fudds?

[aikoaiko]

56. By definition, if they care about detachable magazine, they are not Fudds.

[villager]

51. Fantastic! What unexpectedly good "fallout...!"

[Robb]

52. Except they're not.

The Outdoor Channel has taken great pains to note they're not going anywhere, Bane's ramblings notwithstanding.

And any hunter stupid enough to not apply for their elk tag will have ten standing behind him, delighted he's dropping out.

Magpul is going to keep their non-magazine-related manufacturing right here in Colorado as well.

So it turns out, it's all a bunch of bullshit.

[Peter cotton]

54. Your link to the Magpul story doesn't say they're keeping their non-magazine operations in Colorado.

It simply says that they're moving the magazine operations first.

"We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first," Magpul posted on its Facebook this week.

As for Bane & the Outdoor Channel, the fact remains that the four shows that he hosts are, in, fact, pulling out of Colorado...exactly as stated in the article. That not all Outdoor Channel productions are pulling out of Colorado does not contradict this.

[WilliamPitt]

58. "Hunters across the country are now boycotting Colorado because of the recent legislation."

...and the wildlife rejoices.

[SoCalDem]

59. and Colorado wildlife does a mass high-5

[Autumn]

63. Awesome. Having lived and hunted here in CO, I have never been impressed with

most of the out of state hunting idiots I have met.

[bluedigger]

76. I'll really miss following their clapped out RVs on the highway.

Besides, weed tourism will more than make up for the lost revenue, and bring nicer people to visit, to boot.

[Peter cotton]

77. Magpul or marijuana?

(Denver Post cartoon)

[bluedigger]

81. Ha!

That's about the sum of it.

[upaloopa]

79. Good soon you won't have anywhere to go

What makes gunners think anyone cares if they don't visit your state. Stay home and hug your gun I don't give a fuck.

[DinahMoeHum]

80. Fewer "slob hunters", more game for Colorado hunters. . .

. . .lesser chance of innocent bystanders getting hurt from slob hunters

. . .and better chances for the game to reproduce and perpetuate their species.

What's not to like?

Hope those idiots follow through with their threat to boycott.

[frogmarch]

84. And Colorado wildlife jumps for joy. nt

[politicat]

85. OMG! Fewer jerks drinking our beer, smoking our dope and leaving their shells behind?

So fewer dumbass hunting accidents, fewer hypothermia rescues, fewer drunk driving accidents on the back roads? Fewer search and rescues for getting lost in 6 square miles? Fewer cattle and sheep getting shot because the difference between cow and elk is so minute?

Really? This is all we had to do?

How do we annoy the skiers next?

Most hunting guides and camps could easily double or triple their bookings, if their waiting lists are any indication. License tags sell out in under a week now. I think we'll be fine.

[bluestate10]

86. Great. Now hikers and mountain climbers and wilderness lovers that don't have to worry

about getting shot by a bubba will come to Colorado to visit and spend as much money as hunters, likely more because there are more of hikers, climbers and wilderness lovers.

[Phillip McCleod]

93. YES!!!!!111!!1!

the elk are cheering hickenlooper's praises to the wild places!

i grew up there ya know. in the mountains not on the plains-with-a-view. vegetarian by 16 thx to hunters.

that shade of orange.

:shudder:

[Phillip McCleod]

94. gawd i love your posts everybody.

my heart just opened wide up for all of you.

next question: what can we do to get all 50 to provoke such a boycott. we'd have our ecosystems back on track by say... mmmmm... 2099?

[KansDem]

101. Well, there are always drones...

Deer spotted! *repeat* Deer spotted!

[bhikkhu]

105. For other reasons, Colorado is looking at a bannner year for tourism

I don't think they have anything to worry about.

If I know hunters, probably the guys in Colorado are thanking their lucky stars - nobody likes out of state guys with big bucks coming in and hoovering up the best of the season.

[ellie]

107. Good.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[musical_soul]

108. In the home of the aurora shooting.....

what did these people expect? It's not like they banned guns, just made some regulations.

Go ahead and boycott CO like a child. I'll be sure to buy from them.

[morningfog]

119. That is fantastic! Congrats Colorado!