Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Two gun bills pass out of state House committee (CO)
The Gazette ^ | February 12, 2013 10:26 PM | MEGAN SCHRADER

Posted on 02/13/2013 9:22:38 AM PST by Red Steel

DENVER • After more than eight hours of public testimony Tuesday, Democrats passed out of committee two gun-control measures that would create universal background checks and limit high-capacity magazines to 15 rounds.

The bills were the first to be heard of sweeping gun regulations proposed by Democrats this year in the wake of the Aurora movie theater shooting, and they will now head to the House Appropriations Committee and the House floor, respectively.

Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, authored both bills and defended the measures against an onslaught of criticism from gun rights advocates who filled the committee chambers at the Capitol wearing stickers saying “I vote pro-gun.”

Universal Background Checks

Under current law, buyers of firearms at certified dealers or gun shows must pass a background check performed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

There is no background check performed, however, when a firearm is sold or transferred between individuals. But House Bill 229 would change that.

“The private sale loophole is just a way for criminals to skirt around our current background check and it contributes to the murder of 34 Americans every single day,” Fields said. “Background checks are the only systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers and the seriously mentally ill and other abusers from buying firearms.”

Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, told Fields the bill would have done nothing to prevent the Aurora shooting in her district and will do little for public safety.

“What we’re doing is imposing a higher restraint on one’s right to keep and bear arms,” said Gardner, who was one of four votes against both bills.

Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, voted in favor of the bills and said no constitutional rights are absolute and all are subject to reasonable restraint on things such as time and place in the interest of public safety.

“The balancing that we have to do to protect our amendment rights while promoting our public safety rights is the challenging task we have as representatives,” Lee said. “What we need to do is prevent people who want to do us violence from obtaining weapons.”

Ronald Sloan, director of the CBI, spoke in favor of the bill.

A fiscal analysis estimates the additional background checks would require 25 additional staff members at CBI and would cost $1.6 million in 2013.

The proposed bill allows for the transfer of firearms between immediate family members. It would be a misdemeanor to violate the law.

Private sellers would go to licensed gun dealers and pay $10 to have the required background check performed.

“This bill would place an unjust burden on law abiding citizens who may live miles, two hours, from the nearest gun dealer where they would have to go and register or go through and do a background check procedure,” said Daniel Carey, lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. He said a similar requirement in California had failed to increase public safety.

High capacity magazines

Fields’ second bill bans magazines that hold more than 15 bullets, but provides a grandfather clause to allow current owners to keep their high-capacity magazines.

“The motivation behind this bill is based on what happened in Aurora on July 20,” Fields said. “A shooter killed 12 people and he injured 58 … in 90 seconds he was able to do that kind of damage.”

The family of victims from the Columbine and Aurora massacres and the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Connecticut testified in favor the bill, talking about how loved ones could have survived if the shooter had to take time to reload.

A representative from Magpul, a manufacturing company based in Colorado that produces high-capacity magazines for both domestic and foreign militaries, testified that the multi-million dollar company that employs 200 people would have to move out of the state if the bill is passed.

About the Bills

HB229: Requires background checks for the sale or transfer of a firearm between two individuals, and makes violation of the law a misdemeanor, as well as, holding the seller liable for damages if the gun is misused.

Authors: Representatives Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora; Beth McCann, D-Denver; and Sen. Morgan Carroll, D-Aurora

Action: Passed House Judiciary Committee 7-4

Next Step: House Appropriations Committee

HB224: Bans the sale or transfer of magazines that hold more than 15 bullets or 8 shotgun shells, requiring manufacturers to date-stamp and serial number newly produced magazines. Current owners are grandfathered in and a violation is a misdemeanor.

Authors: Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora; Sen. Mary Hodge, D-Brighton

Action: Passed House Judiciary Committee 7-4

Next Step: House floor

GUN STATISTICS

Background Checks 2012

The Colorado Bureau of Investigations performs background checks on every person attempting to buy a firearm in Colorado from a licensed dealer or gun show. Demand in December increased the wait for a background check up to 10 days. In 2012, the agency reported: • 343,302 background checks • 7,362 denied total

Firearm deaths in perspective

In 2010, the National Vital Statistics Report was released by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention showing estimates for the leading causes of death based on evidence.

• Accidents: Falls 26,009 Discharge of firearm 606 Drowning 3,782 Exposure to smoke 2,782 Poisoning and noxious substances 33,041

•Suicide Discharge of firearms 19,392 Other 18,972

• Homicide Firearms 11,078 Other 5,181

• Undetermined intent Firearms 252

Totals Drug-induced 40,393 Alcohol related 25,692 Fatal injury by firearms 31,672

Source: National Vital Statistics Report “Deaths: Final Data for 2010”



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/13/2013 9:22:47 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Why don’t some Republican representatives introduce bills placing limits on freedom of the press, since our Constitutional rights aren’t “absolute”? Two can play this game. If only our side would learn that.


2 posted on 02/13/2013 9:27:04 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Here’s my feeling....If you are licensed in one state, there should be a reciprocity between ALL states. The idea that I can’t protect myself at all times is absurd.


3 posted on 02/13/2013 9:29:58 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“The private sale loophole is just a way for criminals to skirt around our current background check and it contributes to the murder of 34 Americans every single day,” Fields said. “Background checks are the only systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers and the seriously mentally ill and other abusers from buying firearms.”

Ms. Fields are you that ignorant? Criminal by definition do not follow the law. So you write a new law and you think they will all of a sudden obey laws? Mam you live in a fantasy world.


4 posted on 02/13/2013 9:31:43 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the American Revolution 2013 and the Crusades 2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, authored both bills and defended the measures against an onslaught of criticism from gun rights advocates who filled the committee chambers at the Capitol wearing stickers saying “I vote pro-gun.”

You can put lipstick on a Democrat and it's still a Democrat.


5 posted on 02/13/2013 9:33:12 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Obama's vision - No Job is a Good Job)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

“Why don’t some Republican representatives introduce bills placing limits on freedom of the press, since our Constitutional rights aren’t “absolute”? Two can play this game. If only our side would learn that.”

R’s made the argument in the hearing yesterday—Bob Gardner argued the Background check was like a prior restraint on speech. D’s ignored it.

If R’s introduced a bill about background checks for the press, it would be hooted down by everyone and the R’s would vote against it. It would be a stupid bill. Worse, the D’s might decide it was a good idea to filter out bloggers and just leave the captive media to do their bidding.


6 posted on 02/13/2013 9:34:08 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
My feeling is that licensing is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional. As are all of the laws proposed and most of the laws already passed. Not only are they unconstitutional, they don't do anything except infringe on the rights of those that don't break the law.
7 posted on 02/13/2013 9:34:46 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
My feeling is that licensing is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional. As are all of the laws proposed and most of the laws already passed. Not only are they unconstitutional, they don't do anything except infringe on the rights of those that don't break the law.
8 posted on 02/13/2013 9:34:56 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“The private sale loophole is just a way for criminals to skirt around our current background check and it contributes to the murder of 34 Americans every single day,” Fields said. “Background checks are the only systematic way to stop felons, domestic abusers and the seriously mentally ill and other abusers from buying firearms.”

Ms. Fields are you that ignorant? Criminal by definition do not follow the law. So you write a new law and you think they will all of a sudden obey laws? Mam you live in a fantasy world.


9 posted on 02/13/2013 9:36:19 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA (Where can I sign up for the American Revolution 2013 and the Crusades 2013?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Photobucket
10 posted on 02/13/2013 9:39:09 AM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

Of course I don’t mean seriously introduce such a bill, I mean introduce it to make the point, and point out that it’s ludicrous, just as laws restricting our 2A rights are ludicrous. The ‘rats use such ploys.

Anyway, are the antis really so ignorant that they believe people who have criminal intent are going to go through all the hoops to legally acquire and keep a gun, just to proceed with their criminal intent? I don’t think they are. I think they know full well that these are just means at chipping away, bit by bit, the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens. That’s the only people who will pay heed to all these laws.


11 posted on 02/13/2013 9:40:55 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

Of course I don’t mean seriously introduce such a bill, I mean introduce it to make the point, and point out that it’s ludicrous, just as laws restricting our 2A rights are ludicrous. The ‘rats use such ploys.

Anyway, are the antis really so ignorant that they believe people who have criminal intent are going to go through all the hoops to legally acquire and keep a gun, just to proceed with their criminal intent? I don’t think they are. I think they know full well that these are just means at chipping away, bit by bit, the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens. That’s the only people who will pay heed to all these laws.


12 posted on 02/13/2013 9:40:55 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Durus

You’re proposing a lawless society...the Federal Constitution and State Constitutions say otherwise.


13 posted on 02/13/2013 9:51:06 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Funny. Denver is considering opting out of the marijuana laws because, get this, crime is up.

And now they want to take away the guns.

It just doesn’t get much better then that


14 posted on 02/13/2013 9:57:51 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (I own a weapon to protect my family from those wanting to take that weapon away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I believe AR-15s should be banned and M-16s made legal.

The AR-15 is designed to kill as any people as possible in a short time, so the politicians say.

The M-16 requires 250,000 rounds to make one kill.

Ok, this is sarcasm.


15 posted on 02/13/2013 10:00:51 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Funny. Denver is considering opting out of the marijuana laws because, get this, crime is up.

Wow. And the law is not even in effect...

Don't suppose you have a link?

16 posted on 02/13/2013 10:03:49 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Hispanics make up 32% of the population. Maybe the cartels found a new base....and it’s all nice and legal.


17 posted on 02/13/2013 10:13:12 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Those bums in Denver are begging me to take my tax and investment dollars elsewhere.


18 posted on 02/13/2013 10:37:34 AM PST by Standing Wolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Born and raised in Colorado. Spent the first 34 years of my life there. Haven’t lived there in a decade. Went home last Christmas and I don’t even recognize the place or the people anymore. Definitely not the libertarian/conservative bent I grew up with. The place has been thoroughly Californicated.


19 posted on 02/13/2013 10:50:49 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“no constitutional rights are absolute and all are subject to reasonable restraint”

The face of tyranny. If there is no absolute RIGHT, then there are NO rights. The fascists consider a right to be any thing that the deem we MUST do. If it is not forbidden, it is mandated.

This comment is precisely why we have an UNALIENABLE right to overthrow despotic governments.


20 posted on 02/13/2013 11:37:30 AM PST by CSM (Keeper of the Dave Ramsey Ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Rep. Pete Lee, D-Colorado Springs, voted in favor of the bills and said no constitutional rights are absolute”

Rats don’t believe that for a minute. They believe that the right of a woman to murder her unborn children IS absolute.


21 posted on 02/13/2013 12:20:46 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (There is no requirement to show need in order to exercise your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

“Anyway, are the antis really so ignorant that they believe people who have criminal intent are going to go through all the hoops to legally acquire and keep a gun, just to proceed with their criminal intent?”

The supporters are that ignorant. The folks masterminding this stampede could care less. This is a step toward gun registration—there will be 4473’s for every gun in America sold after this date. That’s all they care about.


22 posted on 02/13/2013 3:17:34 PM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
That's why I say, time for some “civil disobedience” of our own (if that's the right term for it). If the illegal aliens can have sanctuary cities when their very presence here is against the Constitution, then we should designate sanctuary areas for gun owners, considering we have the backing of the Constitution. On top of that, we need to just not leave paper trails like good little sheep. They get rewarded for flouting the Constitution, they will want to punish us for following it. But I want to force them into the position of making the hypocrisy apparent. Non-compliance.
23 posted on 02/13/2013 3:59:59 PM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

It’s on Drudge. “http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/denver-considers-whether-to-opt-in-or-out-of-amendment-64/";


24 posted on 02/13/2013 4:30:00 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (I own a weapon to protect my family from those wanting to take that weapon away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

well isn’t that precious. the colorado dims say we can’t increase penalties for child abduction BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS but these same libturds don;’t think there are enough anti 2nd ammendment laws on the books. crime is up in denver thanks to pot laws and the libturds once again care more about criminals (including illegals) than us citizens.
how are they going to enforce background checks of sales between private citizens? how are they even going to know? does it apply to out of state sales? how about 20 round magazines brought across the state line? are surrounding states going to not sell them to colorado residents? typical not very well thought out bs law from idiot anti constitution libturds.


25 posted on 02/13/2013 8:41:27 PM PST by bravo whiskey (“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Be careful, Coloradans; be very careful:

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/Battle-of-Athens.html


26 posted on 02/14/2013 4:30:02 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
How does saying that the Federal and State governments need follow the Constitution equate to "proposing a lawless society"? The government ignoring the constitution fosters a lawless society.

The meaning of the 2nd amendment is clear despite the obsfucation from people that wish to overthrow our system of government. The meaning of the term "infringe" is equally clear. Virtually all gun control laws are therefore unconsitutional.

I have no idea how you could claim that the Federal and State constitutions say otherwise unless you have one of those USSC decoder rings that shows the hidden and sometime opposite meaning from the old plainly written constitution.

27 posted on 02/14/2013 6:54:26 AM PST by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson