AURORA | When a gunman opened fire inside a packed movie theater in July 2012, killing 12 and injuring 70, the event did more than spread fear and heartbreak across Aurora. It catalyzed sweeping statewide gun legislation.
In 2013 following the Aurora theater shooting and the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut, Democrats in the state Legislature narrowly passed new laws requiring universal background checks and banning magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. At the time, Colorado was the only state outside of the Democratic Party’s coastal bases to have passed such significant measures.
Fierce critics of the measures failed in attempts to repeal the laws in the past year, with pro-gun groups essentially fighting to a draw over how to achieve their aims.
“Our hope is full repeal of these laws, but we live in a world of political reality,” said Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute in Golden. He said that a 15-round limit prohibits residents from owning popular pistols and rifles, most which are designed for magazines that fall between 15 and 30 rounds.
“There is enough support in the legislature to increase the magazine capacity from 15 to 30 rounds,” he said. He pointed out that Democratic state Sen. Joe Salazar said last session he could support such a compromise. Salazar did not respond to a request for comment on whether he would support similar legislation in 2016.
The outcry against the new laws spurred the subsequent recall of two Democratic state senators — John Morse and Angela Giron — who supported the measures. In the 2015 legislative session, a handful of Republicans unsuccessfully attempted to repeal the ammunition limit altogether. Their efforts were blocked in the Democrat-controlled state House of Representatives.
Though gun rights groups were successful in the recalls, the pro-gun senators who replaced Morse and Giron — Bernie Herpin and George Rivera — were voted out in the 2014 general election. And, amidst big GOP victories statewide last November, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper won re-election despite signing the gun control laws.
State Rep. Rhonda Fields, who sponsored the gun reform measures in the House, said she expects a similar battle to be fought in 2016.
“Everyone has the option to run legislation. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tries to roll the measures back,” she said. She said she, however, questions why legislators feel it’s necessary to ease the magazine limit, and that critics should look at the data showing Colorado’s gun laws are keeping residents safer.
“We know the Aurora theater shooter had a magazine that held 100 bullets and his objective was to kill as many as he could,” she said. “There is data that suggests we have diverted the opportunity for criminals and felons and people who are mentally unstable to access guns.”
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation’s 2015 data on background checks shows the state has denied more than 2,900 gun purchases through May, with the most applicants being denied due to an issue with “assault.” That’s out of 136,135 firearms transactions that have been recorded by the agency since the beginning of this year.
States that have closed loopholes that let people buy guns without a background check are safer places to live, according to the gun-control advocacy group Americans for Responsible Solutions.
“In the 16 states and the District of Columbia that already require background checks for all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners, there are 48 percent fewer firearms suicides, and 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are shot to death by handguns,” said Mark Prentice, communications director for the group.
David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute who is also a Second Amendment legal expert, said he believes Colorado’s gun measures have proven to be a cumbersome and sloppy effort on the part of Democratic legislators to improve public safety.
“Whatever you think about background checks on private sale, House Bill 1229 enacted in 2013 is a poorly written and harmful law,” he said.
The bill mandates universal background checks for gun transfers, including private sales, and requires that the background checks are conducted through a federally licensed firearms dealer, with the price of the transaction fee limited to $10.
He said Colorado’s background check law — which requires the buyer and seller to travel to a gun store — is draconian compared to other states, such as Massachusetts. That state has an online portal for private sales that gun sellers are required to use to record their transactions, a system Kopel said Colorado would be wise to model.
Kopel is representing Colorado sheriffs as well as disabled firearms owners in ongoing litigation over the gun measures.
And other pro-gun legislators are not giving up so easily.
Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, who sponsored legislation last year to repeal the ammunition limit, said she will support a full repeal again next year because it is safer for citizens to be armed. She pointed out that the Century 16 theater in Aurora restricted concealed carry.
“Criminals get an advantage when good citizens are at a disadvantage from bad laws,” she said. “There is plenty of research that suggests criminals like their victims at a disadvantage and will case the future scene of a crime to ensure the most success.”
And for those legislators, there will always be an opponent, said Tom Sullivan, whose son Alex was killed in the theater shooting.
“The stuff we did in Colorado three years ago was common sense. Since I will never get to see Alex age every day, I don’t have a problem walking in there (the statehouse) every year and watching them (legislators) age year after year,” he said.
— The Associated Press contributed to this story.
3 YEARS AFTER: A look at Aurora and Colorado after the July 20, 2012 Aurora theater shooting
3 YEARS AFTER: Campaign for Aurora 7/20 memorial fund continues uphill climb
3 YEARS AFTER: Renewed debate expected for post-Aurora theater shooting gun reforms
3 YEARS AFTER: PERRY: Aurora theater shooting verdict delivered nothing to ease the pain
““We know the Aurora theater shooter had a magazine that
held 100 bullets and his objective was to kill as many as he could,”
she said.”
Except the magazine quickly jammed (which is common in those type of magazines) and Holmes ended up doing most of his damage with the shotgun and 9mm pistols he was toting.
The reason that further gun control laws have gained traction isn’t because of the NRA or any other boogeymen, it’s because the proposed laws after careful analysis wouldn’t have done anything to actually stop the crime towards which they were passed in reaction.
” critics should look at the data showing Colorado’s gun laws are keeping residents safer.”
Let’s just ignore the fact that homicide rates in Colorado have been on a downward trend since the mid-1990s, and less than 3.5% over the last ten years.
The similar thing happened to the Tucson shooter. His 33 round pistol magazine jammed and that is when he was stopped. Good thing he did not have those highly reliable 10 round magazines.
Frankly any magazine over 30 rounds is unreliable and are not used by the military or anyone familiar with weapons.
““There is data that suggests we have diverted the opportunity for criminals and felons and people who are mentally unstable to access guns.””
Please provide the data.
Rapsheet Rhonda? Provide data, statistics, etc. to prove that her armed hoodlums that she represents are less frequently criminals because of background check laws? You must not know her…
“In the 16 states and the District of Columbia that already require background checks for all handgun sales, 46 percent fewer women are shot to death by their intimate partners, there are 48 percent fewer firearms suicides, and 48 percent fewer law enforcement officers are shot to death by handguns,”
How do background checks prevent suicides? What percentage of officer shootings are done with weapons procured via a background check? Those stats are BS.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/chris-dumm/gun-laws-murder-rates-tale-two-washington-cities/
When you have a predetermined result in mind, one need only to seek to prove the result, not to seek truth.
D.C. has the highest murder rate in the nation of any state/territory/etc. Add in the fact that all new handgun sales in all 50 states already require background checks, and their argument falls apart further.
The loophole that they closed regarded private sales, which do not require background checks under Federal law.
They closed nothing. Private is Private.
If that private sale is done without an FFL, it is illegal under Colorado law.
Molon labe. English – F u
Very intelligent of you Jack. Your response speaks volumes for your mentality.
F u. Done with Marxist. Try and take them.
Your posts are incredibly juvenile, Jack. You dishonor the men you use as your profile picture.
I served. I will not shut up and sit while goons like you destroy the U.S. Constitution.
And when and where did you serve?
You want the guns can’t me and talked them.
P.S. You know nothing of honor. F off
You’re just pitiful, Jack. I don’t know who you served, but your comments are a disgrace. You show up, in the midst of a discussion, to say, “F u” several times, then call me a troll?
The Constitution is intact and will remain so. Nobody is destroying it. Heck, nobody is even talking about changing it.
And you’re apparently paranoid. Nobody is coming for your guns. I’m guessing that’s what you tried to say when you typed, “You want the guns can’t me and talked them.” Maybe it’s time to stop drinking and typing.
Once again, your posts show a complete lack of honor. You should choose a different picture as you’re disgracing the Tomb with your insults.
You are the insult.
F ing troll. You Marxists are so smart.
F ing troll. Use your full name. F ing Marxists cowards.
Why, Jack? You can continue to toss insults here.
So what, it’s not going to be enforced, you can’t monitor every private gun sale, there are not enough cops and they have better things to do and more serious crimes to prevent tan violating some stupid gun law.
Violate the law and you are, by definition, a criminal. If you’re willing to violate this law, you can’t be trusted to follow others, so you probably shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun, anyway.
Is that all you do all day is spend your time spouting your filthy liberal anti gun comments and getting into arguments with people who know more about guns than you will never know. You look like a chubby little girlie gay boy.
Thanks for demonstrating, again, that you and your ilk cannot maintain a proper discourse without impugning one’s knowledge, political affiliation, and in a new reach, one’s sexuality. What are you, twelve? Once again, Fred, I am not “anti-gun,” I am “anti-idiot,” especially idiots with guns.
Gun restrictions of any kind have only one effect on crime, and that is to increase it. Criminals are not bothered in the least by gun laws. They have no desire to buy a gun legally when they can buy a gun illegally for a fraction of what it would cost in a legal transaction. The seller of a stolen gun has a very low cost of goods sold in his profit and loss statement and is therefore able to offer bargain prices.
Of course, it’s only a bargain to a fellow traveler in the criminal world. No rational, law-abiding citizen would risk his freedom and his good name by entering into such a transaction. To be in possession of a firearm whose serial number traces to a stolen gun is a disaster for anyone who with no criminal record. It is of little consequence for a criminal. That’s why universal background checks are a feckless farce. They only inconvenience good citizens with no effect whatever on criminals.
In my 26 years of Military Service, I completed (typed and interviewed) Officers and Enlisted applications for Security Clearances. Those forms were long, and very invasive. Majority of my work after initial, was in Security, Intelligence, and higher level projects. Background checks will never disclose as much as those forms, which then had Intelligence Investigators asking questions of indicated references, and to people those individuals who knew the one( or had been associated with) who applied for security clearance, or upgraded to higher levels. And in that period (1950 to 1976) we had people who got into trouble later, who had clearances removed, and were discharged, or faced UCMJ punishment. A BACKGROUND CHECK IS ONLY VALID AS OF THE DAY IT IS SIGNED AND INVESTIGATED. No one can predict what that individual will do after that, though we like to believe they will live out rest of life without problems. ———Better check would be for doctors, and medical profession to have better methods to decide who has mental problems, and cure them Since they can’t you want to make honest people into criminals. I have owned weapons since age 16 and am now 85, and only registered my weapons at one time, while living on military base. And I have traveled in 44 states of 50, with at least one in my vehicle in all of that. GUESS THAT MAKES ME A CRIMINAL, IN PC WORLD OF PROGRESSIVES-LIBERALS. And on four occasions it benefitted me and my family that I did, since it sent some folks on their way who had wrong intentions. I am not going to spend money to register guns I have, and I will not report them. If forced to use one, so be it. And I suspect there are many more like me in the USA.
PUNISH THOSE WHO USE GUNS WRONG, NOT THE MAJORITY WHO WILL NEVER COMMIT A CRIME. GUN CONTROL HAS BEEN USED IN PAST TO CONTROL PEOPLE, NOT PRESERVE CIVILIAN RIGHTS.
Constitutional Carry is the only lawful gun law. Our demoncratic politicians are totalitarian criminals.
It’s never been lawful. There is no such thing as “constitutional carry.”
Bear=Carry
“Constitutional Carry” is the term used to describe the unfettered, unrestricted carrying of firearms. There has never been such a thing.
So there have always been gun laws in the US? I don’t think the facts will support your assertion.
Actually, Kentucky passed a law concerning handguns in 1813. Local governments also had their own restrictions that likely predated that state law.
Ok so then you admit there weren’t always gun laws in the US. “Likely” doesn’t quite cut it. Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Every gun restriction enacted in that era was meant to disarm blacks, and were seldom enforced against whites. Gun control in America has deep racist roots. It seems odd that Rhonda Fields is such a staunch anti-gun grabber. Apparently, she does know this history.
https://www.wcti12.com/Guns-In-America/History-of-gun-control-in-the-U-S/18563348
From the article, “The first gun control laws were created in the South. In 1837, the
Georgia Legislature banned handguns. But the Georgia Supreme Court
struck down the law eight years later, citing the Second Amendment.”
So apparently you are wrong.
Many states have Constitutional Carry implemented now and they have much less crime than disarmed slavestates.
How are you defining “Constitutional Carry”? What states have implemented it?
Every state that has enacted Constitutional Carry has kept its other statutes that set forth the exact same restrictions on concealed carry that were used to qualify one for a permit. For those who do not meet these standards, it remains unlawful for them to carry a concealed weapon.
Bill of Rights are a permanent part of The Constitution and says the Right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Any arms that are available and any law against any arms is infringing and illegal. Well regulated is necessary and was written as clear as can be. Being a “Right” it applies to all except government which has no Rights.
Read the second amendment again and then look-up what no law shall abridge. And everyone knows that criminals follow the law. Laughable.
Perhaps you should spend a little more time reading it. It doesn’t talk about “abridging” anything. And did you forget that the second and third words of that Amendment are “well regulated”?
There are a number of restrictions on the individual possession of weapons that have been found Constitutional.
Eric, you are a liberal/socialist progressive troll. Go play with your friends over at the Huff Post. If you think the well regulated militia means anything other than every able bodied person, you are severely retarded. We are allowed to keep and do what with our arms? Say the word you fool and then take your insane ideas elsewhere.
Your single shared braincell can’t comprehend that these rights are not given to us. They exist and no law or government can take them away. So continue to bang your head against the wall and don’t admit that these natural rights exist, with or without government.
“Well regulated,” Tony. What part of that do you not understand? I’d go into the history of a standing army, etc., but I’m not going to waste my time with you.
So you don’t think there should be any restrictions on weapons? Everyone should have the right to unlimited access to all firearms, and be able to carry them everywhere without restriction? Sorry, Tony, but that will never happen. There are too many people in this country with more common sense than you are displaying here.
You follow your God, the government and I will follow mine, the real God. You follow whatever unconstitutional laws sheep follow and I will follow the constitution. You are not a man.
That’s the best you can come up with? What are you, a sovereign citizen? You keep ignoring any law you don’t like and you’ll find out what Constitutional rights a Federal prisoner has. You are a fool, at best.
The cops will not arrest law abiding citizens who violate stupid gun laws in most rural areas, they know better.
Eric, You argue from ignorance of the US Constitution and its meanings, and where the Bill of Rights list issues inherent for the PEOPLE, and cannot be regulated by the Government. When you read that, take one step more and read the Colorado Constitution. It is very specific that citizens ‘have the right to use lethal force to protect themselves, their families, and their property. And I do not find where that has been changed, amended, through the years, though out state legislators seem to have not read it. And I have not checked other states, as to what they have on that issue, but would wager they have similar wording. Colonist, and leaders in the 13 colonies knew what they faced, and protected themselves from. A skill seemingly not present in 21st century.
Frank, what’s your point? I don’t think anyone has argued that individuals do not have a right to protect themselves. As far as regulating your rights, that is well within the purview of the government, at all levels. Are you claiming that the US Constitution and state constitutions somehow mean that there can be no regulations on firearms? ‘Cause there sure as heck are restrictions. And they’ve been around for a long time.
Eric, You seem to be writing to me , and to others of your ideas. I don’t really care what you think. I am 85 years old, learned to shoot rifle at 13, brother same day age 11, single shot. What do you care what I do, or what I think. I know when I am concerned, not worried about being attacked. With my health problems now, I cannot run, or fight with fist. But I am still alert enough to know when to shoot, when not to. I served 26 years in military, and went through qualifications every year, even firing EXPERT in basic, without the prior practicing my peers in basic received. I had been volunteered by a barracks basic like me, for unknown detail, and wound up in ground safety office remainder of time I was supposed to be in basic, learning how to be military. Typing ground safety copies to be placed in each barracks bulletin board. So I have been able to think for myself, supervise others, manage projects, AND I HAVE DISPLAYED A WEAPON ON 4 OCCASIONS WITH SOME DAM FOOLS MEANT PROBLEM FOR ME, WIFE, AND CHILDREN. I did not wave it around, I simply held it up in view, pointed at sky, and they departed. I camped, traveled, visited, lived in, and traveled through 44 of our 50 states. Camped in forests, roadside rest areas, beside hotel in Vegas, when their park was full, and out in the desert. My campers were fully contained, only needing fresh water, and places to dump black and regular waste water. So don’t even attempt to change my mind. I only registered my guns one time, when we lived on-base. And I told our Colorado Governor way back after I retired, and moved back to my home, when he asked for my vote at a forum: I want to see you as Governor and so does my wife. But I will tell you since you have supported gun control as a Representative. I will never tell you or anyone what guns I own, how many, or where I store or secure them. He was elected, and served 8 years (2 terms) and when I met him, we were on first name basis, if unofficial meeting. Otherwise, we used formal address. Unlike our present governor who cannot make a decision about 3 on death row, refusing to set a date, and execute them. And Holmes will be joining them soon. He has disappointed me on other subject also. So Eric, you go your way but I hope you never meet someone who will physically make you sorry, if you cannot protect yourself, or your family After all Governors and President are releasing known, convicted, killers and rapists back to the streets without telling local police. Odds are you will meet one of them sooner, rather than later.
Well, Frank2525, that was a waste of typing. What are you going on about? You tell me I don’t know the Constitution, then imply that the government has no authority to regulate firearms, somehow equating that with the ability to protect yourself and your family.
Let me address your points one at a time. First, I understand the Constitution perfectly well. I also understand the context in which it was written, the writings of the framers of that Constitution, and the court opinions that have guided implementation and interpretation of that document.
Second, the government absolutely has the right to pass laws that restrict access to firearms. There has never been an unlimited right to firearms in this country, and there never will be. Weapons of mass destruction, weapons that can destroy at great distances, and weapons that can overwhelm our national safety should never be in the hands of civilians.
Third, nobody has ever claimed you do not have the right to defend yourself or your family. That’s not an issue here or anywhere else.
Finally, your new point, about convicted killers and rapists being released into society. That’s always been the case. When a person completes their sentence, they are released from custody. Unless there are specific reasons to notify local law enforcement, then the prison officials would not do so.
This article was about closing a loophole in the law that allows some prohibited people, like Dylann Roof, to legally acquire firearms when they should be denied that right. This is a simple change to existing law that would affect roughly 1.1% of firearms transactions.
Shame on you Eric. Have you not seen this in every case of shooters? Good person, liked by everyone, who is a boiling human within self. Does something, especially criminal, and everyone is so shocked. Mothers say he was always a good boy, loving, would not hurt a fly. MSM immediately designate the guy/girl as a nut job, and can always find someone to yack about it as an expert, analysis why society let that shooter down. We honor the criminal. And that shooters name will be repeated for several years, combined with other. How long do you remember the names of the victims who were killed or injured. By time trial is held, you have to have score card to know who they were, unless they show up (as in Holmes case) to talk to those who fight to be on jury. Give me a break. All of this is only news for MSM and gossipers until next stuff happens. We have so much info available now, that we are saturated and sensitivities are non-existent.
Frank2525, what are you going on about?! Shame on me?
Were do you get your “1.1%” statistic? And before you try making something up, or going by a poll done on 250 or so people, possibly decades ago, you might want to read Lying With Statistics. It was required reading in my government class because we’d all like to fact-check that. You have nothing to lose if you are right, and it would lend you credibility if it is a true cross-section of all citizens of the USA. Also, you might want to go back and re-read your Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Constitution has always been the Supreme Law of the Land, limiting the powers f government. Don’t like something in it? Lobby to convene a Constitutional Convention and have it amended, but know that until that happens, ALL US citizens – yes, even YOU if you are a legal citizen – are duty-bound to uphold it AS WRITTEN, and any “legislation” passed in any other manner must by definition be considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and therefore not legal or binding. The Bill of Rights just REAFFIRMS our inherent, God-given Rights, it does not,never was an instrument to limit the people. So go back to school and ask a SMART kid in your Government class to explain it all to you and keep explaining it till you fully comprehend it all instead of asking that kid to do your homework for you because those very same laws and affirmations protect even you to spout non-sequitur sophistry defiling the very laws you invoke by voicing your opinion. I’ve read enough of your mind-numbing rants and temper tantrums to know you only want to argue. But to do that and win, you better find a way to get educated fast because we are not bound by any laws that contradict the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Like it or not, as it is in your case, the power to be governed has always been in the hands of the people first and foremost, and no amount of whining is going to make it otherwise.
I’m not going to waste a lot of time responding to you because you tend to bloviate, given the chance. The 1.1% statistic is based on the number of background checks that are not completed within the current three day maximum period. That number is based on the FBI statistics from the most recent reports on the NICS.
You have no “God-given Rights.” If you did, those rights would be universal, but they’re not. The Constitution lays out exactly how laws can be passed in this country, and they don’t require a change to the Constitution to do it. That’s just nonsense. When the government does pass a law that is unconstitutional, it is the Supreme Court that makes that determination. The Supreme Court has long upheld the Bill of Rights is not a list of unlimited rights. Even the 1st Amendment right to Freedom of Speech has limits. The 2nd Amendment is no different.
Regarding your supposed knowledge of statistics, I would suggest you go back and read the parts of the book about “representative sampling.” I think you’ll find it renders your rambling about “250 people” to be moot.
Do not be so cleverly sarcastic. Criminals should be allowed to have indiscriminate use of violence against defenceless citizens ?
Sorry, “Dr”, but you lost credibility when you wrote “aloud” instead of allowed and you haven’t corrected “defenceless.”
You sound like an anti gun idiot.
Sorry, Fred, but I’m definitely not an anti-gun idiot. I’m just anti-idiot.
If you support stupid laws like unenforceable back ground check laws and restrictions on the size of magazines you are anti gun.
“Stupid laws”? I don’t think so, Fred. There’s no reason background check laws should be considered unenforceable. If you get caught breaking the law, then you pay the consequences, including the loss of your right to carry firearms.
actually yeah, I’m anti-gun.. because F*CK guns. “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” WHAT A LOAD OF NRA PROPAGANDA IDIOCY.
You are also an A H%%%.
You sound like an idiot.
Go F yourself rabid anti gun idiot.
Well regulated to the modern man means well-governed. That’s not what it meant in the language of the day. That’s an unfortunate byproduct of how language evolves and becomes co-opted.
It meant well equipped and well prepared. Context means everything.
Thank you for bringing in the temporal context. At that time, the US had no standing army, so a militia was necessary to provide for the common defense. Using that context, the entire 2nd Amendment, similar to the 3rd Amendment, should no longer inform our laws to the extent it does.
Well let’s be clear. I am only bringing in contextual definition of the word regulated.
You are bringing in a contextual interpretation for the purpose of the militia.
The 2A states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. There is a lot of wiggle room in this phrase.
According to your last comment, the temporal context was that the militia was necessary to provide for the common defense. But against what do you suppose? Foreign threats? Domestic threats? The threat of the people’s own Government?
This is where it gets murky.
I suppose it is at some point unavoidable to look at the Constitution as a whole. What was its intent? Was it a declaration of the US as a sovereign nation? No. That was the Declaration of Independence. Every word of the Constitution deals with the natural (or God given according to some) rights of man and the desire to preserve it.
If I may take liberties with your last comment, you suggest that the Militia was intended as a temporary army to defend against foreign invaders who threaten our freedoms.
Considering how much discourse at the time centered around empowering the people and that the government was to be subject to the people, my conclusion (and it is really only one opinion and one take on it) is that the 2A was intended to defend the people and preserve their power over its own government as well as foreign governments.
To say that the 2A is weakened and less necessary due to the fact we now have a standing Army (one which is controlled by the Government) seems antithetical to the entire purpose of the Constitution.
Now that doesnt mean there can’t be some “regulation” (as used in modern context) of the right to bear arms. But your last comment suggests the 2A has little relevance in today’s world. I simply disagree.
Eric, so many of our Rights have been degraded. And there are those among gun supporters who would deny other Constitutional Rights to certain people. I refuse to turn this into a Red vs Blue debate. I only want that we preserve all our rights to the furthest extent possible.
I agree that the Constitution was intended to provide power to the people, but we have to recognize that “the people” have changed significantly since that document was written. I don’t think any rights have been degraded. You still have the 1st Amendment right free speech, to peaceful assembly, and there is no state religion. Your 4th Amendment rights are intact, with the possible exception of the NSA data-gathering that certainly skirts the line, at best. Fifth Amendment – still in effect. The “Speedy Trial” provision of the 6th Amendment has received justified scrutiny, but that has centered on what constitutes “speedy”. The 7th and 8th, still in effect. Even the 9th and 10th have not been taken away, despite what some states would like to believe. I think a lot of people think they have lost rights because other groups have been granted equal protection – an old story that we hear every time people who have been excluded from certain rights are finally given their due.
Heck, the only Amendment that is not in effect is the 18th, which was repealed by the 21st. All the others are still there, still in effect.
4th Amendment rights are intact? Wrong. No knock warrants, sobriety checkpoints, border checkpoints (150 miles from the border), data retrieval and storage from cellular devices, airport searches, urine tests, facial recognition devices, night vision devices, hearing devices….
The 10 Amendments called Bill of Rights are a permanent part of The Constitution unlike the rest that can be changed. Not that our leaders understand that at all…
Yes we did have a standing Army. It was called the Continental Army. It was demobilized in 1783 at the end of the Revolution with a small contingent force being retained until the regular Army could be commissioned which it was by a resolution in 1784 one year later and maintained until a new official Regular Army could be created.
The next in line was the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and then on Sep 25, 1789 the bill of rights was created. On Sep 29, 1789, four days later, the new Federal Army was ratified by Congress and last but not least, the Bill of Rights was ratified on Dec 15, 1791.
So,to put forth the notion that the second and third Amendments are no longer relevant in the “temporal context” because the framers were relying on the Militia for defense is absurd. They obviously had designs on a Federal force while writing the Bill of Rights as the time line clearly demonstrates.
You are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that the Second Amendment is a individual right as recently clarified by the
Supreme Court with more then 200 years of precedence.
Are you talking about a well regulated bowel movement. Read the 2nd amendment carefully. Do you think the founding fathers left the door open so citizens could be put under tyranny by force once again. Hardly.
Did you forget the second part of the 2nd Amendment Eric?
… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Your side seems to forget this….why?
Eric: If you break the 2nd amendment into 2 separate sentences, placing 2nd half first, would you accept the meaning of both? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
And having read papers by the main writers of Constitution, that was intent. We have already learned how judges can see words and intent not written. And Militia was any male 16 through senior years, who was required to have a weapon, shot, and know how to use them. Also well-regulated had heap of other meanings also. PC folks of today, like you and others, can see what you want to see. BUT COLORADO CONSTITUION DOES NOT HAVE CODE WORDS ON THAT SUBJECT. And I challenge your last sentence. At 16, no ID, no job, no car, not even a bicycle, I walked into Romney WV hardware on main street, bought 8mm Belgium Army Rifle, Mauser action, for $8.00, and about $1.50 for box of 20 shells. Walked down the street and up about 6 more blocks (total of about 10-12 blocks, and no one challenged, or wet their panties. Not even my parents when I reached Uncles house, with us driving back to Ohio a few days later. I still own that rifle, but gave to son in another state, who has since cleaned it, disassemble it, and found all pieces with matching numbers. If they different numbers, it would be worth about $400.00 now. With matching numbers, worth about $4,000 and up. He bought bayonet, cleaning rod, and another piece and made it a complete weapon. History of Belgium is they took 1934 and 1936 rifles, to make a 1935 Rifle, which this one is designated. RADOME name.
Frank2525, I’m trying to follow you here, but you seem to quickly wander off topic into a lengthy digression. The 2nd Amendment was not written as you describe here, and by changing the order of the words, you completely change the meaning of the entire statement. You don’t get to take the clauses out of order to fit your agenda. Yes, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has changed as society has changed, and as the needs of our country have changed. We currently have a standing army which we did when the Constitution was written.
The whole remainder of your post seems to boil down to, “I bought a gun when I was 16.” Okay. What’s the point?
Okay. What is the point.
Better folks than you and me have been arguing this over many years, And I don’t care. It makes no difference at this point to the major issues we have, and this is not law school, or English class, (as some posters want to be).
That is why Donald Trump is making a stir, and GOP are out of their minds, if they do run him out. Like Perot, and all 15 other GOP candidates now who want to be PC, talk around issues. They will not, so far, face down the Liberals-Progressives and we will wind up with Hillary. That is scary, and tonight I will not look for the Rabbi’s name, but Rabbi in New Jersey (Teaneck) wrote a piece of why Hillary will win in 2016. He wrote it for publishing in Israel, but it made its way back to our net. And he is right on 100%. The freebie voters will vote for a living, while we live to vote. They get the phones, access, food stamps, welfare, and many of them get to be demonstrators and occupiers, shack up in parks until cities wrote statutes against that. NOW GIVE IT UP, AND PUT YOUR MIND TO MAJOR ISSUES.
JIHADISTS, TERRORISTS, DOMESTIC CRIMINALS, OPEN BORDER, AND ALL THE HANGING INVESTIGATIONS — FAST AND FURIOUS, BENGHAZI, ICE, IRS, AND OTHERS ISSUES. Are you hacking on this subject, because you are afraid of those others, and the PC crowd.
Frank2525, I’m done. You’re all over the place. You do realize this is the comments section of a newspaper article, right?
I mean, Benghazi and “open border”? Really?!
You can bet your sweet Patooti on Benghazi. That is a thorn in my side, that has never let up. I managed COMPASS LINK IN 1970s to broadband 2 Satellites, 4 Earth Terminals to move photos, data, fax, voice , from and to, Vietnam C:ommanders to Pentagon and White House. Pres. Johnson and McNamarra and Westmoreland (when in Washington, or in Vietnam, could talk directly and review all. AND OUR DIGITAL SYSTEMS are much advanced to that now. With 2 Drones over Benghazi (they report unarmed, but who sends war planes or drones up for hours), unarmed when they don’t know what missions will become hot, while up. Just like this one did. She talked to Barack at 4 PM that afternoon, and this broke loose not long after. When they brought the bodies back to Hangar and She, Panetta, and others lied to the parents and relatives of those, if that had been me in my casket, I would not wanted my family there. They watched while Mortar team killed the 4, and that sticks in my mind. 26 years, I knew my government would back me, come get me if possible. If you don’t understand that, you and I have no further reason to argue on anything. —————–BENGHAZI HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED, AND NO SPIN OR TWIST WILL CORRECT THAT.
There’s no fool like an old fool.
And the proper answer to that is, you are a smart ass. And you needled others on net, same as you do me. Well, old fools like me have kicked asses along time ago. Just so you could make fool of yourself, and heap dishonor on your parents for letting you live. Okay with you. Suits me fine.
“Heap dishonor on [my] parents”? I think not, Frank. You are delusional and rambling in your commentary.
And you will have to come up with more than your post, in telling me I cannot separate 2nd amendment. This is my computer, and I pay for the access. I can do anything I want, in my opinion. I have researched this over the years, and am not going to do it again. Some of my wife’s and my ancestors were those early colonist, who lived in Kentucky, Tennessee, then moved west of mountains past Winchester, into Potomac Valley, and later to Ohio. Town in Illinois named after wife’s ancestor, and Purgitsville, WV of mine, during and after Civil War to keep the states together. Slavery was a late issue in that war, not the cause.
No free man should ask permission to bare arms.
You’re a f*cking moron!
Solid and logical reply. That type of well thought out and intelligent reply would win a debate every time.
Those laws were a knee-jerk reaction, I believe, were inspired by the Obama administration. Additionally, there are many guns, rifles and pistols I (we) cannot purchase because of magazine capacity. Sometimes this is by only one round but is usually is more. As a collector, this is frustrating. Most anti-gun laws prove to be a waste of time and do little if any good, they merely inhibit the legal sportsman.
Aurora Theatre Shooter – Mentally Ill
Sandy Hook Shooter – Mentally Ill
Tucson Shooter – Mentally Ill
Virginia Tech Shooter – Mentally Ill
….and the list goes on. See a theme? Address mental illness. Do more to keep the mentally ill, who pose a danger to society, OFF OF OUR STREETS. These people have no place living amongst the rest of us.
See, I know that the Sentinel is head-over-heels anti-Constitution, but this is just a pathetic piece of “journalism”. Sadly, there isn’t much real journalism left in this country, it’s all propaganda now. When you tie in your own personal belief to a story, it is no longer news, it is propaganda. Americans will win this battle with out of touch legislators like Rapsheet Rhonda. Ironic that her district has some of the highest violent crime rates in the state, and her idea is to try to make it harder for the victims to be armed. She has to protect her voter base.
Gun reform? Come on guys, you don’t reform guns. Stupid!
How many people have been saved by the magazine limit? ZERO.
There is no empirical evidence that the new gun laws have made anyone safer. Not universal (gun registration) background checks, not the magazine limit (red herring), not the poll tax, errr, I mean background check fee. Nothing but conjecture.
Beyond lazy…. after all this time… and the laws passing about 30 round magazines…. whoever wrote that caption for the photograph is an idiot…. “shows a rack of rifles that can’t be sold because their magazines hold more than 15 rounds”…
NONE of those rifles even have a magazine IN them… it’s separate from the rifle you idiot. The sale of ANY of the rifles pictured are not affected in the least….
That’s funny. Doesn’t make much sense does it? Apparently AR-15’s “can’t be sold” in Colorado anymore – like that would ever happen.
I don’t have any the moral authority to tell another how many rounds their magazine may or may not hold. Neither do the rest of you. That includes Rhonda and the other busy-body control freak legislators.
To put it a little more nicely, in a free society, things which can and are used responsibly (without violating the rights of others) aren’t prohibited by the govt. This includes beer, weed, and xx round magazines. I certainly don’t have any business trying to forcibly prevent others who aren’t harming anyone else from having these things. It would be wrong for me to so. If it’s wrong for me to do that (again, it is), then guess what. It’s wrong for the govt. to do it, too.
Off to reeducation camp for realizing that I don’t need a mommy and daddy anymore. ; )
Gun free zones work so well.
Get rid of the guns and we won’t need them at all anymore. Why should it be your right to carry a lethal weapon? F that SH*T. NRA c*ck suckers are a bunch of f*cking agressive a**holes if you ask me.
Yeah, right, like you’re going to be at the point of the spear trying to take them, you pathetic polliwog.
The Aurora Theater shooting, like the vast majority of mass shootings in the US occurred where law abiding citizens have been disarmed and unable to resist. Link: https://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/2015/06/another-shooting-in-a-gun-free-zone-nine-dead-at-the-charleston-african-american-church
There is no indication that those targets were selected because they were gun free zones.
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/18/discredited-gun-researcher-john-lott-botches-sc/204052
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/gun-free-zones-charleston-shooting-defensive-gun-use-myth
Yet that is where they keep happening.
Merely coincidental indications without a doubt.
Likely not as much as the NRA would like you to believe, HP.
Not sure what the NRA has to do with
it. These incidents were covered by just about every news agency in
the country including but not exclusive too the ever credible Media
Matters and Mother Jones that you so kindly reference, Eric.
You don’t have to argue with these people. If you really want to make them mad join the NRA for just $25 a year. Liberal PBS Frontline/News Hour says 2 years after Sandy Hook the NRA is winning the debate on guns. Get all friends and family to join the NRA.
Well, except it’s well known that federal installations are gun free.
So there’s that….
Another shooting yesterday in a gun free zone. You can clearly see the No Guns sign in this photo, surrounded by bullet holes.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/07/chattanooga-shooting-4-marines-killed-in-gun-free-zone-video/
State Rep Rhonda Fields has a long history of law breaking. Yet she is happy to pass new laws and inflict them upon the peasants.
https://mediatrackers.org/colorado/2013/03/07/breaking-rep-rhonda-fields-rap-sheet-longer-than-previously-reported
Join the NRA and join the fight .Call 877-NRA-2000 and for just $25 a year you can help in the fight to keep your gun rights.
Go to any state that borders Colorado and you can buy all the 20,30,40 etc. mags you want and the government can’t prove when you bought them so they are legal.
Not one of these Democrats will even attempt to explain how making citizens more vulnerable to well-armed criminals makes anyone safer. They will just change the subject if you try to have a reasonable discussion with them.
The amount of private sales that background checks were completed on were a fraction of the 40% quoted by Obama. They lied to get this law passed. I refuse to abide by it and I haven’t been.
Good. Get rid of the guns!! Pro-Carry a**holes are basically a bunch of
f*cking idiots who don’t understand how the USA is by far the worst
place in the world for gun violence…. I WONDER WHY?? bunch of f*cking
morons.
Than move little girl
Many of people shooting guns are gang bangers killing other gang bangers over drugs and money. Who cares
Stop trying to punish the rest of society for your daddy issues.
A short story, ‘a couple of guns were hanging out at the bar one evening, got to talking, thought they should go out and shoot up the place, they did’ end of story.
GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
The government loves to make up their own version of the truth related to tough gun laws. However, people, citizens must have the right to defend themselves. According to our own FBI statistics over 1.4 million people drew their handguns to keep themselves alive just last year alone. The average police response force is not fast enough to prevent a on the spot attack. Police enforce the law they are under no obligation to save your life.
Ask you this Coloradans! Are your politicians exempt from the anti gun laws and magazine capacity? For that what the California State Senators did in June of 2011. Hows it feel you have to obey those gun laws and they don’t have too?