Attention Colorado gun owners

[guardian]

only 102 days before July 1, to go out and stock up on pre-ban high capacity magazines. I figure at least 4 per weapon will be a good round number. Of course, one will still be able to drive a few hours to WY, NM, TX, OK, UT and buy whatever you want after July 1. Since most law enforcement won't try to enforce...mainly because it is unenforceable. There is no way they will be able to tell a pre-ban mag from a post-ban mag.

Personally, I think Cheyenne or Laramie is a nice place to visit in summer. Make a quick stop. Do some 'shopping'. Then drive on a bit and do a little hiking in the Snowy Range. Hit the hot springs resort and spa/microbrewery in Saratoga. Stay the night. Come back the next day. Makes a nice little weekend vacation.

I might even take a printed copy of HB13-1224 just to literally wipe my ass with it during the trip.

ciao babe

[Tuesday Afternoon]

1. confirmation --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172115573#post38

thanks.

ciao.

[rdharma]

2. I love it when folks post how they plan to violate a law!

ON THE INTERNETS!

[Clames]

5. Violate the law?

Obviously you don't understand the process.


It ain't in effect yet genius. Read: perfectly legal to stock up.




Technical ignorance hoists the petards of anti-gunner again...

[rdharma]

10. Ooops!

"and buy whatever you want after July 1. Since most law enforcement won't try to enforce........"

Oops!

[Samjm]

13. Um, the full sentence is

"one will still be able to drive a few hours to WY, NM, TX, OK, UT and buy whatever you want after July 1."

It's perfectly legal to possess. Just not buy/sell/transfer IN THE STATE OF COLORADO. The above statement is not in any way illegal.

[rdharma]

18. transfer

pretty clear.

[Samjm]

107. IN the state of Colorado

If you drive to Wyoming to buy it, you're not IN the state of Colorado. No law has been broken

[Clames]

17. Does the law make that illegal?

Nope. Nothing in the law states a CO resident can't leave the state to purchase a magazine. Bringing it back into the state would only violate the law but it is specifically stated that the prosecution has the burden to prove that the magazine was purchased after July 1.



Ooops...indeed..

[premium]

32. Yeah, ok,

Nothing illegal about going to a neighboring state and buying high capacity mags.

Do you have first hand experience about prison life?
Sure sounds like you do.

[bubbayugga]

33. yeah. OK.

whatever dude.

[DonP]

46. Bye Bye Bubba!

6 - 0 says prison rape is not a joking matter and (editorially) you're a jerk.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Mar 22, 2013, 09:25 AM, and voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yes, out of bounds to send a veiled threat of something to happen for posting his/her opinion.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Agree 100% with the alerter
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: As crazy as the post was to which this post was directed, this is a step beyond the pale. This whole thread needs to find the trash bin.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Some of these obsessive gun advocates get on my last nerve too, but there is no excuse for this kind of response. So, I will vote to hide. Don't become as offensive as those on the RW (nor the most obsessive NRA propagandists)...

[holdencaufield]

35. Wow ...

... let those inner-demons out to play.

[bubbayugga]

36. It was sarcasm.

like anyone is going to jail for an illegal internet post about magazines.

[holdencaufield]

37. Uh huh

[DonP]

45. You do know that joking about prison rape is against DU rules, right?

Nobody considers it funny, whether done from ignorance or spite.

[guardian]

7. Do you laugh at the people on DU

who openly advocate and admit guilt to smoking pot--a felony? Violation of HB13-1224 for a post ban magazine possession/purchase is a class 2 misdemeanor. About like getting a speeding ticket.

Laugh all you want.

[rdharma]

11. Class 2 Misdemeanor

About like getting a speeding ticket?

Class 2 Misdemeanor

Fine $250- $1,000 and or

Jail time ........ 3 months- 1 year

ENJOY!

[premium]

14. It is an interesting enforcement problem.

How do the cops enforce this new law? The mags don't have manufacture dates, so what's to stop people from driving into neighboring states and buy the banned mags?
I can understand why most of the Sheriff's won't waste their time trying to enforce this unenforceable law, it would be almost impossible to determine if the mags are pre ban or post ban.

[holdencaufield]

26. Shhhhhh ....

... you're not supposed to point out that the law is an unenforceable "feel-good" gesture that can only lead to Democrats losing votes.

[premium]

28. You're right,

I need to go to confession and say 10 Hail Marys.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. "smoking pot--a felony"?

In Colorado,
"Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana is a petty offense. The offender receives a summons to appear in court, and upon a promise to appear in court, the offender is to be released from detention. The maximum penalty for a violation is $100."

http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/marijuana-laws/marijuanalaws_colorado.html

A petty offense. Not a felony. Not even a misdemeanor.

[guardian]

42. Actually pot possession and sale is still a "felony"

under Federal law and many state laws. Just get caught with 20+ grams in Florida and see what happens.

With the recent election Colorado state law made possession of small amounts legal. However, State law is now in conflict with Federal law. So even though CO state law says you can grow up to 6 plants in your private residence legally, the Feds could still prosecute you with laws on the books.

Now back on point. The reason I used that particular analogy of pot smoking in a thread about the mag ban law is because the results will be similar. Federal law says pot is illegal. But Colorado law enforcement doesn't enforce it and it isn't worth the time and trouble for the Feds to enforce it now in Colorado. For all practical purposes the same thing will happen with the mag ban law. Law enforcement can't/won't enforce the mag ban law.

So all the antigunners have done with this law is write a STUPID and INEFFECTUAL law that pisses many people off and does ZERO to reduce crime or make anything safer. THis is what you get when you have ignorant people, high on emotion, flailing about on a subject that they have no business voicing and opinon; much less writing laws.

[jmg257]

44. If the law is ineffectual and unenforceable,

why would people, who "for all practical purposes" won't be affected, get pissed off?

With so many apparently having NO problem, and even recommending, ignoring the laws they don't like, whether it is pot or 16 round mags, why get all emotional over them?

I'm sure you will find many who agree the law doesn't go nearly far enough in its restrictions, & is none too easy to enforce...so when more effective laws are passed, will you feel better about it?

[guardian]

50. because

these antigun fuckers are constantly digging and picking and annoying a 100 million citizen gun owners. They annoy us and inconvenience us and needlessly cost us extra money.

We know what their goal is.

[upaloopa]

52. Yea they don't want to get fucking shot.

Anything that slows the growth of guns and gun items is a good thing in my book.

[jmg257]

54. Sure we know what the goal is. To substantially reduce the numbers of gun-related

deaths, most often by reducing/controlling certain arms and their accoutrements.

You feel you are getting picked on, and rightly so, but that is because you have chosen to enjoy a dangerous activity. One shown to involve objects used to cause the deaths of 30,000 people every year. One shown where lack of control leads to a bunch of people dying, over and over and over. Certainly there is need to limit such events, and if limiting access to the objects helps, so be it.

Very likely that whenever effective laws are enacted, a bit of annoyance and inconvenience placed on gun owners are/will be worth it.

[gejohnston]

55. for example?

can you point out an example where such laws reduced murder and suicide?

[jmg257]

58. Sure - Australia and England have had pretty good track records

for reducing gun-related deaths.

[gejohnston]

63. actually no,

UK has been increasing for reasons that have nothing to do with gun laws. Their murder rate was lower before the laws were passed. Most of their laws were in reaction to one time events. Others were passed because of the "red scare". Same with Australia, their murder rates were dropping before the ATA and continued to drop at the same rate. So, no can't really say that. The laws did not show a drop in murder rates, nor did it lead to a drop in suicides. Fewer gun suicides in Australia yes, but not fewer suicides.

[jmg257]

64. I'm sorry - are you talking murders? We were talking gun related deaths.

"The center for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said its research also suggested the number of gun-related deaths was falling since reaching a peak eight years ago. In 2008, there were 42 gun related deaths in the UK, in 2007 there were 51."

51 in '07, 42 deaths in 2008 - pretty fucking good track record.

eta:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_there_in_the_UK_every_year

[gejohnston]

67. still higher than before hand

and still has nothing to do with gun laws, and they may be starting to drop. When they do, they use automatic weapons more than here. Since you can't show causation, it is prime example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I am talking about murder and suicide. Knife and rope deaths are equally as tragic as gun deaths, they just don't get the print.

[jmg257]

71. Gun deaths have nothing to do with gun laws? Ok.....

Yes, other deaths besides gun-related are tragic, but not the topic of conversation. Certainly start a thread on solving those if you wish. Since the mag limits and even an AWB won't affect the ability for effective armed self-defense, doubt there would be a related tick in other forms.

[gejohnston]

74. gun laws will affect gun suicides

gun murders will depend on the black market, underground production, smuggling etc. Some has to do with culture. In the UK, using guns have been rather taboo among UK criminals for years. Fellow DUer gun control advocate and former UK cop Starboard Tack can explain it better than I could.

[jmg257]

78. Hmmm...ok. Not buying it, that gun murders won't be affected by effective

laws that limit access. Surely the issues you mention matter. Substantially limiting the numbers available would have an affect on many of these activites, especially here where there is so much illegal gun flow.

[gejohnston]

89. I gave you perfect examples

USVI's gun laws are not that much different than NYC's. The laws only limit people who obey the law, kind of like our laws limiting access to Meth, pot, and Cocaine. There is little to no empirical evidence to support your belief. You also have t o factor in the number of people who would be harmed without means of defending themselves. Buy whatever you want, but suppositions and emotional appeal is not a legitimate reason to limit any civil liberty.

[jmg257]

92. I agree the penalties for breaking laws would have to be substantial

to make the willingness of breaking said laws less enticing. Surely things you mention like poverty have a hand in that. As does the level of enforcement.

If it can be shown that substantially reducing the number of firearms available led to an increase in gun deaths, or in other forms of victimizing, then I agree - the laws should be re-thought(?).

If it is shown that mag caps laws and AW bans have such negative effects on the people subject to them, then they too should be re-thought. I know of no negative effects based on the 1st AWB, and while causation is often hard to show, the (existing) weak NY & CA bans have seemed to help, not hurt, overall. (not that silly bullet registration BS). Also, variations in these and similiar laws may also be used to make them more effective (UBC, registration, etc).

Nothing we talked about (I think) talked about leaving people without the means of defending themselves. I would not agree with such laws.

We will likely never actually know the effects of federal laws that could substantially reduce the number of arms in the US.

[gejohnston]

94. just a couple of things

agree the penalties for breaking laws would have to be substantial to make the willingness of breaking said laws less enticing. Surely things you mention like poverty have a hand in that. As does the level of enforcement.

Wealth inequality has the strongest correlation.

If it can be shown that substantially reducing the number of firearms available led to an increase in those, or other forms of victimizing, then I agree - the laws should be re-thought(?).

Depending on the study, ranging from anti gun shill David Hemenway, there are about 55K defensive gun uses per year. DoJ puts the number at 100K. Phil Cook and Gary Kleck put in the range of 400k to a couple of million.

If it is shown that mag caps laws and AW bans have negative effects on the people subject to them, then they too should be re-thought. I know of no negative effects based on the 1st AWB, and the (existing) NY & CA bans have seemed to help, not hurt, overall. (not that silly bullet registration BS). Also, variations in these and similiar laws may also be used to make them more effective (UBC, registration, etc).

there is no evidence they helped. The biggest negative effect of the first one was making Gingrich SoH. The only positive thing is that the NRA helped Bernie Sanders unseat some Republican that voted for it. To be honest, NY and CA laws neither helped nor hurt. Since you can't show it helped, there is no prevailing State interest. If there is no prevailing State interest, there should be no law. Progressive and liberal is not always synonymous.

Nothing we talked about (I think) talked about leaving people without the means of defending themselves. I would not agree with such laws.

Unless you are a millionaire, NYC, DC, and Chicago laws do precisely that. That includes less than lethal means such as pepper spray and tasers depending on the city.

We will likely never actually know the effects of federal laws that could substantially reduce the number of arms in the US.

Gun ownership levels in Australia are back to their pre ATA level.

[jmg257]

95. Thanks! nt

[guardian]

68. It sounds like you are okay

with the number of people actually murdered increasing, as long as they weren't murdered with a gun. That is the result of gun control laws. I believe the antigunner simply don't care how many people are murdered as long as their pet peeve is eliminated. That is the only reason I can think of that you and the other antigunners continually focus on a narrow subset of murder statistics.

[jmg257]

70. Derp. I think gun controllers focus on a narrow sub-set of statistics because that is the topic of

conversation...hence the term 'anti-gun'.

When the number of people being murdered actually increases due to magazine limits and an AW ban, we can certainly discuss how to solve THAT problem too.

[guardian]

72. But wait

I thought the goal of all the antigunners was to make society "safer". That is the archtypical antigunner meme. The problem is that it does the opposite. It makes society less safe.

Your post exposes your true colors: Let more people die and be victims of violent crime, just as long as your gun phobia is assuaged.

[jmg257]

76. I don't know about "all the antigunners" - you'll have to ask them.

Derp. Derp.

My post says exactly what it says. Deaths due to any other causes can certainly be addressed. Start a thread in another group and have at it.

In the mean time you can show where 1) I said I want to let more people die and/or be the victims of violent crimes, and 2) I have a gun phobia...otherwise you are just making shit up, and can apologize.

[guardian]

82. Let me check the weather report for hell

Nope. Temp still above freezing.

[jmg257]

83. ??? You mean murders will go up due to mag & AW bans when hell freezes over?

No shit!!

So what the hell are you arguing about???



eta: still waiting for you to man up and make an apology.

No worries, I understand the selfishisness & lack of substance for doing the right thing.
Some gun owners...


edit: reformat, remove personal referral

[guardian]

56. Like Chicago?

Where in this country have gun control laws ever been "effective"? Have ANY empirical data?

[jmg257]

62. Have laws been enacted that substantially reduce the number of guns availble? No.

I agree with you - stricter laws are needed.

[gejohnston]

65. like USVI?

http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/homicides-in-v-i-1.1089794
http://virginislandsdailynews.com/news/48-virgin-islanders-were-victims-of-homicides-in-2011-1.1252998
Meanwhile Guam (which has a licensing system but much laxer) has about the same murder rate of places like Wyoming, Vermont, and Western Europe.
Meanwhile Minnesota and Manitoba both have about the same murder rate. While Manitoba's provincial laws may be laxer, Canadian federal laws more than make up the difference.

Wealth inequality is much greater factor.

[jmg257]

66. Yep - high numbers of guns lead to high numbers of gun related deaths...

"With the drugs has come a steady and heavy flow of illegal firearms that end up in the hands of boys and young men with few options and fewer inhibitions.
...

"There is definitely a commonality," Francis said. "What we've seen in those cases is drugs and guns. Someone with drug involvement has a gun to protect the drugs. You hardly find one without the other."

The V.I. Police Department took 270 firearms taken off the streets last year, he said.

"We don't manufacture guns here," Francis said. "A lot of these guns were either recovered in violent crimes or recovered on a person, which means the murder rate could be much higher had the VIPD not done a good job of getting these weapons off the streets.""


Thanks for the help!

[gejohnston]

69. nope, it depends on who has the guns

notice he said illegal, since getting a legal gun in USVI is about like NYC. It is much easier to get a legal gun in Guam. Wyoming's legal gun ownership rate is something like 60 percent, but has the same murder rate as Guam and much of Western Europe.

[jmg257]

80. On that we agree. Who has the guns certainly has a big impact. And of course

their willingness to use them illegally. Ability & oppurtunity also plays a part.

[oneshooter]

85. Don't forget El Paso.

[pkdu]

101. 100million gun owners, ....is that you Wayne?...please stop it...lmfao. Nt

[Arctic Dave]

3. Advocating illegal actions.

I guess you're one of those "law abiding" gun owners?

[guardian]

4. damn straight!

I'm as pure as the driven snow.

[Arctic Dave]

6. Your the reason we can't have nice things.

Too many jackasses and their apologist.

[guardian]

8. How does my stocking up on magazines

prevent you from having nice things? Set the bong down and let your head clear.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Law breaking is lawbreaking.

And I haven't smoked weed since the eighties.

How will you party it up after the next mass murder kills people? New gun?

[Travis_0004]

15. The law just makes it illegal to sell in Colorado.

Its perfectly legal to drive across state lines and buy whatever you want, so no laws are being broken.

[gejohnston]

19. Just like people in northern Utah

driving up to Wyoming to buy fireworks every July since I was a kid.

[guardian]

22. So you admit to being a felon? On the Internet? nt

[holdencaufield]

24. People in their eighties ...

... shouldn't smoke pot -- it's been linked to Alzheimer's

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Which raises a philosophical question. When is it lawbreaking and when is it civil disobediance?

Guess it depends on whose ox is getting gored, as to which label gets applied huh?

That said, Dear Op; Never tell me anything I might have to testify about in a court of law.

[curlyred]

12. Just another out of state gun nut

We voted for Dems, and they are enacting the will of the people of our state. It's simple.

[gejohnston]

20. they were written by out of state MAIG lobbyists

one even went to a gun range to try out an AR while he was there.

did you vote for this guy? If I were in Colorado, I would find someone less sexist to challenge him in the primary. Never mind the stupid 15 round mag limit.

State Rep. Joe Salazar, a Democrat, made international news during a recent debate over the law banning concealed carry on Colorado college campuses. He said women may “feel” they’re going to be raped when they are actually not in danger, and they may “pop out that gun and pop a round at somebody.” Besides, campuses have call boxes and whistles, he added.

[Trunk Monkey]

48. No, they are not enacting the will of the people of our state

they are enacting the will of the people of Denver (maybe)

Or have you not noticed that protests around the stat and at the capitol

[curlyred]

98. Who elected Dems as the majority in the statehouse?

We did. They ran on a platform and were elected. Poll after poll shows overwhelming support for these laws.

[gejohnston]

99. they ran on and campaigned on the economy

most people don't read party platforms. Each state platform is different than the national one.

[curlyred]

102. Do you live here? Or are you delusional?

[Trunk Monkey]

120. I live here and I'm NOT delusional

I don't know who you're poling but all you have to do is look at the comments section when a news channel runs a story about these laws to know that "the overwhelming majority" want nothing to do with these laws.

[curlyred]

121. If you think the comment section is valid

I have some swampland for you. Look on DU's homepage if you want to see a legitimate poll. The people spoke at the ballot box. The overwhelming majority voted a democratic ticket in Colorado. And the majority of ALL Americans support these laws.

[Trunk Monkey]

122. Can you cite an actual poll that says that ?

I wouldn't call the front page of DU a "legitimate" poll any more than I'd call NRA.com a legitimate poll

[curlyred]

124. Yes, I can. I am sure you wont't mind it's a link to Fox31 News

http://kdvr.com/2013/01/22/poll-55-percent-of-coloradans-favor-stricter-gun-laws/

[Loudly]

16. With whom are you planning to go to war? And why?

And why are you trying to recruit others to arm up?

[guardian]

21. I plan to go to war with a bunch of paper and cardboard.

[holdencaufield]

27. That paper never stood a chance

[Robb]

41. But where did the other ten rounds hit?

[guardian]

43. That is because it was done with a SP101 .357 21/4" barrel

that only has five shots! But that grouping was at 500 meters in target rapid fire. (shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don't tell the antigunners--they will never get the joke)

[DonP]

49. Looked a little big for .223, but a nice groupsw regardless. NT

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Zombies obviously

[spin]

29. Yes, but consider the good things that happened because this law passed. ...

Colorado politicians and Gov. Hickenlooper got to claim that they had done something important to reduce gun violence and massacres and consequently got a lot of praise from the main stream media.

Piers Morgan got a chance to berate a Colorado Sheriff because he stated that he would not enforce an unenforceable law. This probably increased the chances that Piers will remain on CNN despite his lackluster ratings and it definitely enhanced his reputation as a voice of reason from our wonderful mother country who wishes to see our nation have gun laws like his.

Mayor Bloomberg and his Mayors Against Illegal Guns are proud of Colorado.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns On Colorado Requiring Background Checks For All Gun Sales And Limits On Magazines
By Mel Fabrikant Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 06:37 PM EDT

Background Checks Save Lives and Help Police Catch Criminals; Polls Show Overwhelming National Support for Background Checks; www.DemandAction.org
Following Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper’s signing of legislation to expand background checks for all gun sales and limit ammunition magazines today, the co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, as well as Colorado Mayors Against Illegal Guns Chairwoman Marjorie Sloan of Golden, issued the following statements:

“Extending background checks to cover private sales and limiting high-capacity ammunition magazines are commonsense measures that will keep communities safer withoutinfringing on anyone's Second Amendment rights,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “As lawmakers in Congress continue the debate over how to reduce gun violence in America, they should look no further than Colorado as a model of progress.”
“Colorado has taken the lead in making reform a reality,” said Mayors Against Illegal Guns Co-Chair and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino. “We need more states to follow Colorado's example, and more of our elected officials to show the same courage we've seen from Governor Hickenlooper and the state's legislators. It's time for Congress to stand with the American people and take action to reduce gun violence.”...emphasis added

“Today is a momentous day for Colorado and for the millions of Americans everywhere who have called for sensible gun laws to protect our communities, our law enforcement officers, and our children,” said Colorado Mayors Against Illegal Guns Chairwoman and Golden Mayor Marjorie Sloan. “I applaud Governor Hickenlooper and state lawmakers for their leadership and commitment to putting public safety first. We're taking substantive action at the local level to reduce gun violence -- we need our representatives in Washington to follow suit.”
http://www.paramuspost.com/article.php/20130320183711787

Many politicians in other states may decide that they too can pass "feel good" laws and reap the benefits.

[guardian]

47. What Mayor Bloomturd thinks

about anything is first on my 'so do not care list'. That 1%ter can choke on his caviar. Maybe a DoubleGulp enema would clear his head.

[spin]

84. I always find Bloomberg's support for gun control slightly hypocritical.

In his city of New York people can own handguns and even carry them.

The problem is that it is so difficult and expensive to get a permit to do so in NYC that only the rich, the famous and the well connected can get a permit. So Donald Trump, Howard Stern, Don Immus and Sean Hannity have carry permits. The working class guy who lives in a dangerous area finds it nearly impossible and very expensive.

That's Bloomberg gun control. The exclusive upper class gets the guns to protect themselves from the unwashed lower classes. It's wise to give Wall Street Bankers guns as they are obviously far more intelligent and trustworthy than the guy who drives a taxi.

Maybe I missed something in American History class. For some reason I thought all citizens were supposed to be equal. I have absolutely no problem with rich or famous people owning firearms as long as other responsible and honest citizens have the same right. If you are going to make it nearly impossible for the average citizen to own a firearm, no one should own one.

(Over the years I did pick up a little information American history. For example I found that gun control has a long history of racism and prejudice. In the South it was used to insure that Blacks could not own firearms and the KKK could run rampant. In New York City it was used to disarm immigrants.)

Gun Control


***snip***

Before the American Civil War ended, state slave codes prohibited slaves from owning guns. After slavery in the U.S. was abolished, states persisted in prohibiting black people from owning guns under laws renamed Black Codes.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms.[4]

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1868, most states turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a Negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights."[5] Thus, many Southern states imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns in order to price destitute individuals out of the gun market.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control

Sullivan Act

***snip***

The Sullivan Act, also known as the Sullivan Law, is a gun control law in New York State. Upon first passage, the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, "dangerous knife" or razor "with intent to use the same unlawfully". Named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall politician, it dates to 1911, and is still in force, making it one of the older existing gun control laws in the United States.

***snip***

Many believe the act was to discriminate against immigrants in New York, particularly Italians,[citation needed] as the first person arrested under the law was mobster Giuseppe Costabile. Whether this was part of the law's intent, it was passed on a wave of anti-immigrant rhetoric as a measure to disarm an alleged criminal element.[citation needed] The police granted the licenses, and could easily discriminate against "undesirable" elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Act

Often when I post on DU people ask me how I can be a good Democrat and support gun rights. What I can't figure out is how I could be a good Democrats and NOT support the 2nd Amendment and the right of all citizens of all races and all religions to own firearms.

I do believe in some reasonable restrictions on this right. For example I feel that only honest, responsible and sane people have this right as obviously violent criminals and those with truly severe mental issues often misuse firearms.

[guardian]

87. Thanks for the background history on gun control.

I also agree with your assessment that in places like NYC the way they have implement gun control just means that the 1%ters get to have guns and the 99% don't. I'm in favor of all people having equal access to firearms.

As far as "reasonable restrictions" the whole problem centers around what is 'reasonable'. Different people have different opinions. Unfortunately I think this is one of those issues where the two camps are unlikely to come together.

Speaking for myself only, I think a majority of pro-gun control people (not all, but a majority) want to virtually eliminate private gun ownership. Therefore I am intransigent in conceeding virtually any policy position to the antigunners. In my view, the hundreds/thousands of firearm laws on the books are more than reasonable already. Adding further restrictions simply punishes the 99.99999998% of gun owners that don't use their guns to commit crime.

We already have numerous laws that make it illegal for "obviously violent criminals and those with truly severe mental issues" from owning/buying firearms. Are there cracks in the system? Yes. Is any system perfect? No. No matter what laws are established there will still be cracks in the system. Bad people will always find a way to do bad things. But don't make 99% of the people miserable in an attempt to stop the 1%.

[spin]

93. I support the gun laws in my state of Florida. ...

1) Any adult citizen can purchase a firearm from a dealer if he passes the NICS background check. He does not have to have a permit or the approval of any local authorities.

2) He doesn't have to register his firearm. In fact, any form of firearm registration is illegal in Florida.

3) He can get a concealed weapons permit if he is 21 years old that's good for seven years for a fee of $117 dollars. He will also have to have proof that he has completed a firearms safety course, get fingerprinted and obtain a passport photo. Renewing the license will cost $65 and fingerprinting is not required. Unlike in many other states the Florida Weapons permit allows you to carry other concealed weapons such a a knife.

4) A citizen can carry a loaded firearm in his vehicle without a carry permit if it is securely encased (in a glove box, holster with a snap, or in a box with a lid).

For any curious people who happen to be reading this post and wonder about gun violence in the state of Florida:

Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Debate continues over relationship between guns and crime

By JACOB CARPENTER
Posted January 6, 2013 at 5:15 a.m.
DiscussPrintAAA

In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/06/fla-firearm-violence-hits-record-low/

[deathrind]

30. Accuracy > Capacity.

[sigmasix]

34. instead of glib denial

Now that the law is in place it can be pragmatically molded to accomplish the goals of responsible gun ownership. If we had state and federal lawmakers that really cared about reflecting the will of the people we wouldn't need to accept whatever we can get- but the aim of the NRA and other anti 2nd amendment right wing organizations is to flood local, state and federal lawmakers with NRA and ALEC authored legislation and lawsuits. Social media manipulation as well as an increase in cultural and intellectual dissonance result- serving to dissolve American cohesion and toxify political rhetoric. Whenever I encounter full grown men or women with huge collections of guns and glib reactions to the slaughter of children by thier fellow responsible gun owners "until found guilty" (and even then there is no garrantee that violent offenders lose gun ownership rights), I ask myself if I would be willing to use my 357 on same RKBA conspiracy nuts when they inevitably start looking for victims.
Yep. No problem.

[Straw Man]

100. Conspiracy nuts?

Whenever I encounter full grown men or women with huge collections of guns and glib reactions to the slaughter of children by thier fellow responsible gun owners "until found guilty" (and even then there is no garrantee that violent offenders lose gun ownership rights), I ask myself if I would be willing to use my 357 on same RKBA conspiracy nuts when they inevitably start looking for victims.
Yep. No problem.

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong, but you are claiming that:

(a) people who slaughter children might not lose their gun rights;
(b) all people with large gun collections will eventually try to commit murder;
(c) you will use deadly force on such a person when you believe that person is about to do so.

You should not own a firearm. Please proceed to the nearest police station and surrender your .357.

[ileus]

38. Hopefully the citizens of Co will fix law this before mags start wearing out.

[jmg257]

39. Why stock up, even to the point of breaking the law or paying likely elevated prices

for hi-cap mags?

I thought the stance around here was that capacity didn't really matter as one could just do fast mag swaps with more 10 or 15 round mags?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=114889

[guardian]

53. Why?

because who knows what the antigunners will try next. They cannot be trusted. So stock up now while you can. Buy enough now to last a lifetime. When ammo is available again go out and buy 10K - 50K - 100K rounds. Whatever your pocket can afford. That way if these dumbshits who advocate a $5 per bullet tax ever get their way I won't care because I'll never need to buy again.

[jmg257]

57. Well - seems like a great solution to a problem you feel you are confronted with.

If you feel comforted by having 100K rounds of ammo - good for you! Might be a good investment. Might turn out you should have spent your money on something else.

Others here feel mag capacity is a non-issue, but if stocking up is worth the money to you, you should definitely go for it. Hopefully they won't enact another ban doing away with grandfathering...ya never know!

Same with breaking the law whenever the time/chance comes. Up to you to decide what is worth the cost.

[GreenStormCloud]

123. It's part of the culture war.

The purpose of the mag limit isn't public safety, but is a front in the culture war. Gun-grabbers are just trying to stick it to gunners. Gunners a resisting because we don't want the grabbers to win anything, anywhere.

[Robb]

40. Instead of printing out the law, you should bring a map.

Then -- if you use both hands -- you could settle a bet.

[upaloopa]

51. Got your panties in a wad does it? Good!

[slackmaster]

60. Rude.

[upaloopa]

73. One of the standard gunner replies what # is it?

[slackmaster]

75. Arrogant, too.

[upaloopa]

79. You bet. Proud arrogant

I took so many lessons from gunner debate tactics I could probably write a book on it .

[slackmaster]

81. You're not talking about debate. You're talking about boorish behavior, which serves no good...

...purpose regardless of who indulges in it.

[guardian]

86. Let me come to the defense

the whole "panties in a wad" comment directed at me. I understand your comments. I use that phrase from time to time. I can't remember a time that I've ever meant it to imply anything sexist. It's just a phrase we heard growing up. Like "Well shit fire and save matches" or "I don't care if it hairlips the govenor."

But I think some phrases are more regional. And some might consider a particular phrase mild, others may consider offensive. I'm that way with the word 'bitch'. I think calling someone that is quite offensive. But some segments of the culture seem to use it like a personal pronoun.

As far as insults go. I consider it pretty mild. Just part of give and take in an Internet forum on a contentious subject.

[slackmaster]

59. I stocked up on certain pre-ban magazines before California's 10-round limit took effect

I used to own an M1 Carbine, for which the smallest authentic magazines that were made hold 15 rounds. I wanted to make sure that I had not simply a rifle that was in a historically correct configuration, but one that could be used at all.

[virginia mountainman]

61. What will be funny is when they realize...

That practically no maker of magazines will be serial numbering, and DATING them...just because "they" say so...

As long as you have a magazine that does NOT have those items, how can they prove that you bought it, or transferred it, AFTER the date the law take effect? They CANNOT..

KUDOS to idiots that write silly laws that cannot be enforced. Just wait for the "Loophole" bullshit to start..

[bowens43]

77. complete insanity........ wow.

[spin]

88. I agree that passing an unenforceable law is complete insanity. ...

For example this law will cause many in Colorado to stock up on the very magazines that the law intended to restrict. Rather than limiting the number of high capacity magazines the law will double or triple the amount in Colorado homes.

The recent push for an assault weapons ban has also led many citizens to rush down to their gun store and clean the shelves of all firearms and all ammunition. Most political experts knew that another AWB was doomed from the start as there was zero chance that it would make it through the House and would likely fail in the Senate. Not only will millions of new rifles like the AR-15 end up in our homes but so will new pistols and shotguns. Sadly, had the push for the AWB not occurred there would have been far less demand for these lethal weapons. Many who buy them will have little reason to own them and will lack the training in how to safely handle them. Homes where the were only a box or two of ammo will be packed with thousands and thousands of rounds.

[guardian]

91. Yes training/practice/proficiency is certainly an issue now.

I used to go through about 200 rounds per month for practice and/or classes. Not a lot by many people's standards. But enough to help me maintain proficiency. Now because I can't buy replacement ammo I'm not practicing regularly. I'll continue to hoard the supply I do have until such time availability increases. I was going to take a class next month. But have decided to cancel because the class required a 300 round minimum.

Unfortunately the ammo ban does NOT affect criminals. Most criminals never practice. They will buy a pistol on the street loaded with 17 rounds of 9mm and those same 17 rounds will sit in the gun until they use it in a crime. Criminals will brandish their gun a lot amongst their peers or rivals.

It is the non-criminals like to use their gun frequently for target shooting or sport. Now days I'm pretty much limited to snap caps practice.

[spin]

96. Often people question if a person with a legally concealed weapon has any chance against ...

a criminal armed with a gun.

Criminals often get all their gun training from movies. Sometimes they even try to look cool by holding their gun sideways or upside down. Many people with carry permits practice shooting on a regular basis and often are better shooters than the police who qualify with their weapons on an annual or biannual basis. In a gun fight I would give the edge to the person with the carry permit over the criminal despite the advantage the criminal has by having a weapon in his hand.

Shooting a handgun is far more difficult than it looks to be in the movies. Practice is essential. Unfortunately, like you, my practice has been limited by the availability of ammo. I don't foresee any major restrictions being placed on my rights to own a firearm in Florida in the foreseeable future as the truly Draconian gun laws proposed by some gun control advocates have no chance of passing both houses of Congress. Eventually I should once again be able to buy ammo for practice.

I could add that I am damn glad I don't live in New York State. If I did I would seriously consider moving to Florida. The weather is nicer, we do not have a state income tax and we do have reasonable gun laws.

[Jenoch]

90. So far, the gun-control debate that

has occurred in recent months has only accomplished the opposite of what people who are supporters of new gun-control laws say they wish to accomplish. There millions of guns, so-called high capacity magazines, and rounds of ammunition in general circulation that otherwise would not have been sold.

[TheMastersNemesis]

103. This Thread Should Be Removed

[oneshooter]

104. Why?

[Clames]

105. It rustles his jimmies. n/t

[guardian]

106. Because he is confusing this group with another group

thats stiffles all dissenting views so the 'delicate flower' antigunners can talk without a countering viewpoint.

[Straw Man]

108. Yup.

Last edited Sun Mar 24, 2013, 05:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Apparently it is now a banning offense over there to challenge the "Second Amendment only protects muskets" and the "Second Amendment doesn't protect ammo" memes.

[apocalypsehow]

109. You were aware of the SOP when you wandered into the joint and started peddling the NRA line.

That jazz isn't wanted in the new gun control activism group.

What is it about that simple concept that is so hard for our "pro gun progressives"* to grasp?




*( )

[Straw Man]

111. Oops.

I was browsing both forums and forgot that I wasn't in a Free Speech Zone. I suppose it doesn't matter, since I have nothing to say when the SOP is "All Brady, All The Time."

I would, however, disagree with the contention that anyone who believes the Second Amendment also covers ammunition is "peddling the NRA line." That litmus test would rule out quite a few of your running buddies, even the "collective right" crowd. An ammunition-less militia? Brilliant.

My guess is that it had more to do with the fact that the tide of the discussion was starting to turn against one of the hosts. Poor Delicate Flower...

[apocalypsehow]

112. Now, defensive justification and excuse-making. Textbook. n/t.

[Straw Man]

113. Not at all.

No excuse needed for exercise of free speech. Yours is the fault.

Now toddle off back to your protected nest where you can peddle your pap with impunity.

BTW, did you have a point, or were you just here to spew some insults?

[apocalypsehow]

114. Yes. And more obvious with every passing post you make.

[Straw Man]

115. It waves bye-bye ...

... with such eloquence.

Always a pleasure.

[apocalypsehow]

116. It laughs, uproariously. Low-brow entertainment at it's finest, it is.

[Straw Man]

117. Smiley-speak:

The apotheosis of the rhetorical arts.

[apocalypsehow]

118. Whatever you say. n/t.

[sylvi]

119. I wouldn't sweat it

Getting banned from there is only marginally worse than being banned from a Tijuana donkey show.

[sylvi]

110. Well, flowers do need a lot of "fertilizer" to keep them growing strong.

And truth and facts are like a flood that washes that "fertilizer" away.

Yannow?