Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted

[Zach]

I'll admit, I read about the first 4-5 pages, then skipped to the end to comment as I have a feeling the dialoge is nothing more than has been said previously in other threads along the same subject.

My belief, the first murder was with a stone and they were brothers. Since then the weapons have changed, but the existence of evil has been manifested over and over.

You can throw laws at the issue, but in the end you will never eliminate evil(no matter what form it takes). Address the evil, not the result of evil.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Updated the attached Transfer Form I created, to be consistent with the December 2022 Revised ATF Form 4473.

If folks fear felonies, I don’t think using docs by non-lawyers is the way to go. YMMV.

 

[BobbyBill]

If folks fear felonies, I don’t think using docs by non-lawyers is the way to go. YMMV.

Thank you, my intention is to just use the form as a basis to get an ATF Form 4473 transfer and use the FFL paperwork as proof.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Thank you, my intention is to just use the form as a basis to get an ATF Form 4473 transfer and use the FFL paperwork as proof.

FWIW - if I lived in CO I would wait to see how the finished bill ends up and what additional direction owners are provided before doing a bunch of paperwork. For example, I might just do an affidavit of ownership - which has sufficed under some regimes and might here as well when all is said and done. Depending on where it ends up that may or may not work.

 

[BobbyBill]

FWIW - if I lived in CO I would wait to see how the finished bill ends up and what additional direction owners are provided before doing a bunch of paperwork. For example, I might just do an affidavit of ownership - which has sufficed under some regimes and might here as well when all is said and done. Depending on where it ends up that may or may not work.

To be honest, I don’t think the authors have any idea of where even they want the “bill” to end up! There is now a 2nd draft and in it they have deleted the prohibition of possession and now only have “Unlawful manufacture, import, purchase, sale and transfer of ownership of assault weapons prohibited”, but with that said, the lead sponsor, told the press on Monday that criminal and civil penalties under the measure would be “reserved for individuals, businesses and manufacturers that sell or try to sell assault weapons”, and because of the change, Coloradans who already own an assault weapon wouldn’t face penalties”. He also said: “Neither would a Coloradan who travels to a neighboring state to purchase an assault weapon and returns home with the firearm”.

That makes no sense to me; even though the sale could happen in another state, isn’t the Coloradan “importing” it not, or is the “import” protected by FOPA? If what he said is actually true, then what does the law accomplish if anybody that wants an assault weapon can just go to WY, UT or AZ and buy one and anybody in Colorado that owns one could just sell it in WY, UT or AZ (or maybe both: seller to FFL to buyer)?

At any rate, in Colorado, if I want to gift ownership of one of my “assault weapons” to my son-in-law, universal background checks requires a background check be done, so why not also do a 4473 for my daughter? I believe, with a 60% majority, the Democrats ARE going to get A bill passed and maybe quickly! So whatever I need to do, I feel, I need to do it before that can happen. (sounds to me that I’ve already decided, but again, thank you)

 

[NAHMINT]

I am a bit taken aback by those with no sympathy for the poor trying to feed their families. For them that IS the economy. Let them eat cake?

Think MARIE said that, back in the day!!!

 

[Dave N]

Simmer down, Bubba. Nothing has been passed so no need to get all bent out of shape. Give it time to see how it goes.

 

[Dave N]

I can say that because I'm doing just that with our new law that actually WAS signed. Lawsuits have been filed and there is a time period for us before anything HAS to be done.

 

[perma]

Simmer down, Bubba. Nothing has been passed so no need to get all bent out of shape. Give it time to see how it goes.

Well if we can’t freak out about a proposal, what else are we supposed to do!?

 

[Dave N]

Well if we can’t freak out about a proposal, what else are we supposed to do!?

Cruise on over to MM and see what the nudists are doing?

 

[perma]

Cruise on over to MM and see what the nudists are doing?

Don’t threaten me with a good time

 

[BobbyBill]

Simmer down, Bubba. Nothing has been passed so no need to get all bent out of shape. Give it time to see how it goes.

While that is very good advice for a lot of people; I'm just not built that way, as a Program Manager I did not have the luxury of waiting to see if something would happen. (RE: perma:) That WAS the job!

 

[marksjeep]

The bill's "author" didn't author a damn thing. Read the CO draft and the NM bill linked earlier as it was submitted. The language in many sections of both bills is identical.

 

[BobbyBill]

The bill's "author" didn't author a damn thing. Read the CO draft and the NM bill linked earlier as it was submitted. The language in many sections of both bills is identical.

I used the term VERY loosely, the same language is also in the new US Senate Bill. It would be interesting to identify the actual AUTHORS and why the "Balls to the Wall" rush!

 

[VikingsGuy]

I used the term VERY loosely, the same language is also in the new US Senate Bill. It would be interesting to identify the actual AUTHORS and why the "Balls to the Wall" rush!

Standard statutory draft language is very common on both sides of the aisle when they push agenda items. Nothing unusual or of interest there. Happens all the time on dozens of topics.

As for the rush. In a bunch of states the suburban swing voter backlash on Trump and Trumpist candidates has given them a bunch of states where they now have both chambers of legislature and governor for the first time in some while. For example CO and MN. It is unlikely to stay the case in all locations. Look at the narrow window Obama had to get Obamacare through.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

Reckon all who want to have “safe” not-assault weapon ought to buy an M1A about now.

 

[BobbyBill]

Standard statutory draft language is very common on both sides of the aisle when they push agenda items. Nothing unusual or of interest there. Happens all the time on dozens of topics.

As for the rush. In a bunch of states the suburban swing voter backlash on Trump and Trumpist candidates has given them a bunch of states where they now have both chambers of legislature and governor for the first time in some while. For example CO and MN. It is unlikely to stay the case in all locations. Look at the narrow window Obama had to get Obamacare through.

RE: rush - So now we are faced with those same people being either "Gun Control Conformists" or voters who actually see the last week in California as the true worth of “Assault Weapons Bans/Gun Control” until 2024, then WHAT? (Sorry - you were right before - I'm kind of loosing it! [I have very few hot buttons but this is one of them])

 

[FI460]

I'll take this opportunity to remind you all to contact your representatives. In Oregon we got a gun bill through initiative. That gives the public very little opportunity to weigh in.

You've all contacted your reps on how you feel about this draft bill before posting on HT right?

 

[BobbyBill]

I'll take this opportunity to remind you all to contact your representatives. In Oregon we got a gun bill through initiative. That gives the public very little opportunity to weigh in.

You've all contacted your reps on how you feel about this draft bill before posting on HT right?

YES!, My elected Officials at the Federal, State, County, and local levels; plus ever single member of the Colorado Legislature as well as our Governor. How about the rest of you?
OBTW: Colorado State Shooting Association and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

 

[BobbyBill]

Reckon all who want to have “safe” not-assault weapon ought to buy an M1A about now. View attachment 262350

Not very suited to Home Defense and/or Self Defense (under 100 yards).