Kenetrek Boots

Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted

Dsnow9 said:

Maybe one of you bill savvy people can pull up the actual bill that was submitted but here is a video covering the the general idea of it.

oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net

SIGN NOW: STOP the 2023 “Assault Weapons” Ban!

Fellow Patriot, Bloomberg’s anti-gun lobby has called on the State Legislature to take up a so-called “Assault Weapons” ban, banning the sale, transfer, importation, and manufact...
oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net

There is also a link to petition through RMGO.
Click to expand...
The Bill has not been actually submitted. A DRAFT of the bill was leaked and that is what you see on twitter.
I've attached a PDF of the full draft bill that can be downloaded and printed on 8 1/2 x 11 paper.
Read and share!
 

Attachments

  • DRAFT 12-30-2022 Mass Shooting Prevention Act of 2023.pdf
    7.1 MB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Jim Anderson said:
This is the price us “Assault Weapon” owners will pay for a couple decades of the cold-dead-hands crowd pretending that doing absolutely nothing but screaming about the 2A was the correct solution to what the majority of the population would see as a “gun problem”.

Banning assault Weapons will do absolutely nothing to stop shootings, but what other solution have been presented? The GOP has spent 20 years refusing to get in front of this, so the anti’s are winning.

If you think a bunch of dead kids is the cost of doing business to be an American, then you’re part of the problem. There are a ton of things that could have been done, and been seen as acts of good faith, but instead everyone just split into pro-gun and anti-gun.

You had to be delusional to not see the writing in the wall. Now before you get your panties all wadded up, re-read this and decide if your reactions are to what I actually said, or what you’re afraid I said.
Click to expand...
I agree with you; all the Democrats seem to do is attack guns and then Republicans only want to attack Democrats for attacking guns. Attached is a PDF copy of a letter I wrote earlier this year to all My Elected Federal, State, County, and Local level Officials, Senators and Representatives. Most did not even respond with a canned "Thank you".
 

Attachments

  • Open Letter.pdf
    137.9 KB · Views: 7
wllm said:
I agree it is an individual right to own arms.

The 2A doesn't not provide a right to do anything with those arms in and of itself, that was the point I was making.
Click to expand...
Are you just trolling? You don't think that the 2nd Amend was written so that citizens could put a flintlock in a glass case and hang it on the wall as a show piece...right? Right?!?!?!
 
COEngineer said:
Are you just trolling? You don't think that the 2nd Amend was written so that citizens could put a flintlock in a glass case and hang it on the wall as a show piece...right? Right?!?!?!
Click to expand...
You think the second amendment furnishes a right to insurrection?

Plus stare decisis is dead, so the individual right is up for grabs. It’s definitely a possibility that heller will be flipped in our lifetimes.

But yes to your question the 2A puts the gun in a glass case that's all it does, other laws, statutes, amendments, provisions dictate how that gun in the case may be used.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wllm said:
You think the second amendment furnishes a right to insurrection?

Plus stare decisis is dead, so the individual right is up for grabs. It’s definitely a possibility that heller will be flipped in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
The second amendment doesn’t furnish the right to over throw the government.
Was the declaration of independence a one off document that our founding fathers drafted? Did they feel that this new form of government was the perfect one and didn’t stand a chance of getting perverted? I feel that they knew it stood a chance of getting perverted hence the constitution. Thomas Jefferson took pains to argue that the right of revolution was a limited one, in the sense that one could not do this for weak or frivolous reasons (or “light and transient causes”).
So what happens when a majority of people feel like the government is not representing them or following the constitution? Was it the founder fathers idea for the government not to follow the will of the people? Would be founder fathers be ok for the people to be subservient to the government?
The founding fathers laid the terms of when a government should be overthrown.
The left and right are bunch of self serving idiots and it’s time for a non violet overhaul to get people in government that will work for the people.
Nothing good comes from leading from a 51% majority.
 
Scott85 said:
The second amendment doesn’t furnish the right to over throw the government.
Was the declaration of independence a one off document that our founding fathers drafted? Did they feel that this new form of government was the perfect one and didn’t stand a chance of getting perverted? I feel that they knew it stood a chance of getting perverted hence the constitution. Thomas Jefferson took pains to argue that the right of revolution was a limited one, in the sense that one could not do this for weak or frivolous reasons (or “light and transient causes”).
So what happens when a majority of people feel like the government is not representing them or following the constitution? Was it the founder fathers idea for the government not to follow the will of the people? Would be founder fathers be ok for the people to be subservient to the government?
The founding fathers laid the terms of when a government should be overthrown.
The left and right are bunch of self serving idiots and it’s time for a non violet overhaul to get people in government that will work for the people.
Nothing good comes from leading from a 51% majority.
Click to expand...
You got my vote.
 
Scott85 said:
The second amendment doesn’t furnish the right to over throw the government.
Click to expand...
No, it does not specifically enumerate that right nor a right to self defense.

The later has been held by courts to be an “unenumerated right”, which would be protected by the 9th. The 2A might imply that there are unenumerated rights but it doesn’t literally say what they are, there have been cases to this effect, not “just my opinion”.

State laws typically dictate self defense not federal law, castle doctrine/stand your ground, etc. The states decide what use of individual force is permissible and under what circumstances. Again 9th and 10th amendments.

Until the 14th amendment 1868, the 2A and constitution only applied to the federal government and its relationship with citizens, the equal protection clause in the 14th is where created a provision whereby the federal government will protect rights of individuals when they are violated by the state.

For instance this was the law which allowed much of the federal civil rights involvement in the south, see Little Rock Nine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott85 said:
Was the declaration of independence a one off document that our founding fathers drafted?
Click to expand...
Yes, precisely. It is not a governing document.

The declaration was a document drafted and signed by the Continental Congress.

The Constitution is the governing document for the United States and was drafted 11 years later. The Declaration is not in fact a legal document of the United States as the United States did not in fact exist when it was drafted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scott85 said:
Did they feel that this new form of government was the perfect one and didn’t stand a chance of getting perverted? I feel that they knew it stood a chance of getting perverted hence the constitution. Thomas Jefferson took pains to argue that the right of revolution was a limited one, in the sense that one could not do this for weak or frivolous reasons (or “light and transient causes”).
So what happens when a majority of people feel like the government is not representing them or following the constitution? Was it the founder fathers idea for the government not to follow the will of the people? Would be founder fathers be ok for the people to be subservient to the government?
The founding fathers laid the terms of when a government should be overthrown.
The left and right are bunch of self serving idiots and it’s time for a non violet overhaul to get people in government that will work for the people.
Nothing good comes from leading from a 51% majority.
Click to expand...
There is no legal succession from the United States, it is not part of the constitution. The supreme court ruled on this issue in Texas v. White.

The US has seen many rebellions/attempts at insurrection/succession none were allowed, and no perpetrators in the aftermath were able to successfully claim a constitutional right to rebellion in order to escape punishment.

Whiskey rebellion - Put down by Washington
Frie's Rebellion - tried for treason, sentenced to hang, later pardoned by Adams
Nat Turner's Rebellion
The Civil War
Battle of Liberty Place
Greenwood Insurrection
Wilmington Insurrection
San Juan Revolt

among numerous others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nameless Range
Heads on Pikes
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Tradewind
Tradewind
Skunk_Sheriff
Colorado SB 22-031 Ban on Bobcat and Lion Hunting
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
10K
rideold
R
E
Lessons learned: hunting partners
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
tormenter
T
Ben Lamb
Interior misses Great American Outdoors Act deadline
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
11K
mottlet
M
N
Spot and Stalk Archery Muleys (It's Harder than It Looks!)
Replies
4
Views
820
NickCNC
NickCNC

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
114,024
Messages
2,041,613
Members
36,433
Latest member
x_ring2000

Share this page

Back
Top