Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[freyasman]

You are really an idiot, aren't you?

What the hell do you want the filthy ass government to do before someone is given permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US? A right that says very clearly that it shall not be infringed? A full FBI background investigation? Like I got when I was granted a Top Secret security clearance? When is enough ever going to be enough for you asshole Libtards?

The stupid oppressive Democrats are the ones that pushed this idiotic NICS check through Congress so are you saying this is just another example of their incompetency?

Actually, if the FBI ever read the crazy shit you post here, they'd realize you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

I don't think we should all live in terror of gun nuts because a bunch of slave rapists couldn't foresee the mass production of guns and a gun industry with no ethics.

That's the first time I EVER heard anyone in public admit to a "Top Secret" security clearance. And the FBI wouldn't be the agency to render that anyway. As the story goes, if you have to ask your security clearance, you don't need one.

I don't know about now but during Vietnam when I got my TS the FBI did the investigating. I know because family and friend, some I hadn't had contact with for years contacted me and asked my why the FBI was investigating me.

When I got mine, it was a rubber stamp. I was already in the Service with a Secret and I had already been investigated in order for my Sister to get her TS for the FBI.

Wait...... your sister is a fed?


That explains a lot, actually.

 

[Rigby5]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified. They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime. As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them. Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government. The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government. I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL. Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.

Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14. Both are fully automatics. You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos. But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.

Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle. Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands. Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.

but not in many states that require 100% background checks. For those, they have to send the gun to a licensed gun dealer.

Not exactly correct. CMP is a licensed dealer, and licensed dealers can ship direct to you. CMP does a 100% background check, so supersedes any state laws. But CMP has been shipping to an FFL of your choice, not for the background check, but for the finger print identity check.

Not in many states. Maybe where you live but not here. You have to purchase the gun in person and have the background check ran right then. I don't think I want to live in a state that would sell to anyone without that. So you stay where you are at and be happy.

The normal routine that an ordinary FFL uses does not have to apply to CMP which is a federal entity already, and can run under any different regulations the federal government decides to use.
There is no reason the background check can't be run ahead of time, and remote.
All that then has to be then done in person is the ID verification, not the background check.
And that can be done by anyone the CMP trusts, like the US Post Office, for example.
Your state has nothing at all to do with it.
Federal law trumps state law, so the federal government always does exactly what it wants, regardless of what state you live in.
What you also are forgetting is that the whole purpose of the CMP is to get more guns into the hands of the public.
It is what their mandate is.

 

[Lysistrata]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

Not just for the same reason the police and military need them, but for the additional reasons that the police and military already HAVE them, and the police and military are always the most corrupt and dangerous because they are mercenaries working for whomever pays them.

How do you expect a democratic republic to ever survive is you don't have an armed population that can defend itself from the police and military when they turn against the democracy?

I have to think about what you are suggesting, that every adult in the U.S. population be armed against some assault by the police and military. Women's clinics, black institutions, including black Christian churches, synagogues and mosques, establishments where LGBTs gather: should we guard them all with assault weaponry against assaults by the police and military, and/or other people, like "militia" gangsters?

Yes.

Everyone should be willing and able (and "able" means having the tools necessary) to defend themselves and their people.

Gun up, gear up, post guards, hell, set up machine gun positions on the roof if you want...... then wait and see exactly who it is that actually comes after you.
(Hint; it won't be a bunch of regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump, because we don't give a shit what you do, we just want to be left alone.)

View attachment 474805

EVERYBODY just wants to be left alone, not just "regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump." What you are totally blind to is that everyone, meaning every who is not in this group, as well as the people in it, is sending the exact same message.

 

[freyasman]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

Not just for the same reason the police and military need them, but for the additional reasons that the police and military already HAVE them, and the police and military are always the most corrupt and dangerous because they are mercenaries working for whomever pays them.

How do you expect a democratic republic to ever survive is you don't have an armed population that can defend itself from the police and military when they turn against the democracy?

I have to think about what you are suggesting, that every adult in the U.S. population be armed against some assault by the police and military. Women's clinics, black institutions, including black Christian churches, synagogues and mosques, establishments where LGBTs gather: should we guard them all with assault weaponry against assaults by the police and military, and/or other people, like "militia" gangsters?

Yes.

Everyone should be willing and able (and "able" means having the tools necessary) to defend themselves and their people.

Gun up, gear up, post guards, hell, set up machine gun positions on the roof if you want...... then wait and see exactly who it is that actually comes after you.
(Hint; it won't be a bunch of regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump, because we don't give a shit what you do, we just want to be left alone.)

View attachment 474805

EVERYBODY just wants to be left alone, not just "regular Christian/traditional family white guys who voted for Trump." What you are totally blind to is that everyone, meaning every who is not in this group, as well as the people in it, is sending the exact same message.

Am I?

I don't think so.

Claiming that people are attacking you doesn't make it so.

 

[Vrenn]

we need to enforce our federal guns laws.

When Richmond VA did the murder rate was cut almost in half

Criminal control is what makes the difference

No, we need to hold the gun industry accountable.

The law we need to pass, allowing the victims of gun violence to hold gun sellers and manufacturers responsible when they sell to people who shouldn't own guns.

The problem with that is that gun shop owners are already held responsible for selling to people not qualified. They can lose their licenses and go to jail for for that crime. As fir the gun manufacturers, the laws are even stricter for them. Every gun they sell HAS to go to a licensed dealer or to a country with a valid end-user certificate issued by the US government. The restrictions on the manufactures are even stricter than on the government. I had a reason to look up the procedures of the Civilian Marksmanship Program for selling M-1s and other surplus rifles and they can sell and ship to me at my home address without my having a FFL. Oh and I can buy up to seven guns a year from them.

Not the M-1 (thompson Model 1920) and the M-14. Both are fully automatics. You are partially correct about the M1A and M1A1 since they are semi autos. But most states require them to be shipped to a gun dealer where you will have to go through a background check to pick them up.

Go to the CMP website, they ship directly to your home address if it's a rifle. Currently they only sell M1903 Springfields, M1917 Enfields and M1 Garands. Plus M1911 pistols, but I didn't look at the shipping for the pistols.

but not in many states that require 100% background checks. For those, they have to send the gun to a licensed gun dealer.

Not exactly correct. CMP is a licensed dealer, and licensed dealers can ship direct to you. CMP does a 100% background check, so supersedes any state laws. But CMP has been shipping to an FFL of your choice, not for the background check, but for the finger print identity check.

Not in many states. Maybe where you live but not here. You have to purchase the gun in person and have the background check ran right then. I don't think I want to live in a state that would sell to anyone without that. So you stay where you are at and be happy.

The normal routine that an ordinary FFL uses does not have to apply to CMP which is a federal entity already, and can run under any different regulations the federal government decides to use.
There is no reason the background check can't be run ahead of time, and remote.
All that then has to be then done in person is the ID verification, not the background check.
And that can be done by anyone the CMP trusts, like the US Post Office, for example.
Your state has nothing at all to do with it.
Federal law trumps state law, so the federal government always does exactly what it wants, regardless of what state you live in.
What you also are forgetting is that the whole purpose of the CMP is to get more guns into the hands of the public.
It is what their mandate is.

You keep saying that over and over. And the Tooth Fairy will deliver your new toy like you planned.

 

[woodwork201]

Fascists always support gun control because they do not trust the average person.
Those of the wealthy elite always want gun control because they would otherwise have to pay them more and not make as much profit.
As an actual liberal and not a fake Biden supporter, I am totally against gun control because it is against the egalitarian principles of a democratic republic.
Sure there are criminals you can't trust, but you lock them up.
If they are not locked up, then you have to treat them as equals in all ways, including firearms.
Otherwise this is not a democratic republic, but just another dictatorship.

Guy, here's the thing.

We are awash in guns and we lock up more people than any other country in the world.

Yet we have the highest crime rates in the industrialized world.

That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?

Sorry, man, when the ATF shows up, you'll be crying like a little baby, "Please don't take my guns, I love them!!!"

Yeah, because that was the expression on his face when he bought the gun. I await your video of that.

So now you think on top of a FEDERAL background check, the gun store should start calling their schools too? Then you wonder why we don't want to see Democrats in any form of power in this country?

yes, I do.

I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job.

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me. They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers. They checked my credit. They checked my criminal record. They made me pee in a cup.

If they had performed that kind of background check on Holmes, they would have found he was nuts and his school was in the process of expelling him for being.. nuts.

But since you are a free market kind of guy, I'm all for a free market solution. Let the gun industry run it's own background checks, and let the victims of gun violence take the gun industry to court when some fool who thinks he's The Joker buys a gun and shoots up a theater. I promise you, the gun industry will very tightly control who they are giving guns to after that.

 

[JoeB131]

That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.

No, it means we are locking up too many people and creating a permanent criminal class.

 

[JoeB131]

Just like in Prohibition, when you try to make something like drugs illegal, all it does is jack up prices and make it more enticing.
The other causes of crime are unfair law, unfair poverty, lack of opportunity, education too expensive, no unions, etc.
The number of guns has nothing to do with the amount of crime, because criminals always get guns if they want them, because they will get them illegally.

Actually, Prohibition did bring down the amount of alcohol consumed, and even after the 22nd Amendment, the levels of alcohol consumption never reached their pre-Prohibition level. The same could be said of banning drugs. Pre-Drug bans, you had 1 million addicts in a population of less than 100 million.

Now, you might be on to something, are guns addictive and brain altering? I sometimes think so when I read posts from people like 2AGuy, who has a clear gun fetish. Someone who has a social drink once a week is not the same as a chronic alcoholic, and someone who is stockpiling guns probably has serious issues as well.

 

[August West]

We don`t need no stinking background checks. Just open up enough car doors and you`ll have one. I wonder if these guns are now in the hands of criminals?
Metro Police: 12 guns stolen from vehicles last week | News | wsmv.com

 

[Flash]

That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.

No, it means we are locking up too many people and creating a permanent criminal class.

With a couple of dozen or more street thugs shooting each other in Chicago every day don't you think that the Democrats running that city aren't locking up enough?

 

[freyasman]

Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?

Sorry, man, when the ATF shows up, you'll be crying like a little baby, "Please don't take my guns, I love them!!!"

Yeah, because that was the expression on his face when he bought the gun. I await your video of that.

So now you think on top of a FEDERAL background check, the gun store should start calling their schools too? Then you wonder why we don't want to see Democrats in any form of power in this country?

yes, I do.

I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job.

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me. They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers. They checked my credit. They checked my criminal record. They made me pee in a cup.

If they had performed that kind of background check on Holmes, they would have found he was nuts and his school was in the process of expelling him for being.. nuts.

But since you are a free market kind of guy, I'm all for a free market solution. Let the gun industry run it's own background checks, and let the victims of gun violence take the gun industry to court when some fool who thinks he's The Joker buys a gun and shoots up a theater. I promise you, the gun industry will very tightly control who they are giving guns to after that.

Tell the fedbois I said; "Good luck "

LOLOLOLOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

yes, I do.

I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job.

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me. They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers. They checked my credit. They checked my criminal record. They made me pee in a cup.

If they had performed that kind of background check on Holmes, they would have found he was nuts and his school was in the process of expelling him for being.. nuts.

But since you are a free market kind of guy, I'm all for a free market solution. Let the gun industry run it's own background checks, and let the victims of gun violence take the gun industry to court when some fool who thinks he's The Joker buys a gun and shoots up a theater. I promise you, the gun industry will very tightly control who they are giving guns to after that.

Getting a job is not a constitutional right, so as always with your comparisons.



If we are to make gun companies liable for the actions of their customers, then let's do that across the board. Car companies can be sued for DUI injuries and deaths, companies that manufacture swimming pools and boats be liable for drownings, food companies and restaurants be liable if somebody chokes to death on their products, Microsoft and Apple liable if somebody uses their product to scam people, set people up for robbery, or lure children into sex acts. Let's just sue them all. If one of your customers can't get a job and commits suicide, you are liable if his family sues you for writing his resume.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.

It means our deterrents are not strong enough. The solution? Make them stronger.

 

[Blues Man]

That just means we're locking up the wrong people and not keeping locked up the ones we should.

It means our deterrents are not strong enough. The solution? Make them stronger.

We don't enforce our federal gun laws at all. If we did then we would have more of a deterrent

 

[Ben Thomson]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.

Wow....did you take all morning to come up with that stupid post?

 

[2aguy]

yes, I do.

I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job.

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me. They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers. They checked my credit. They checked my criminal record. They made me pee in a cup.

If they had performed that kind of background check on Holmes, they would have found he was nuts and his school was in the process of expelling him for being.. nuts.

But since you are a free market kind of guy, I'm all for a free market solution. Let the gun industry run it's own background checks, and let the victims of gun violence take the gun industry to court when some fool who thinks he's The Joker buys a gun and shoots up a theater. I promise you, the gun industry will very tightly control who they are giving guns to after that.

Getting a job is not a constitutional right, so as always with your comparisons.

View attachment 475037

If we are to make gun companies liable for the actions of their customers, then let's do that across the board. Car companies can be sued for DUI injuries and deaths, companies that manufacture swimming pools and boats be liable for drownings, food companies and restaurants be liable if somebody chokes to death on their products, Microsoft and Apple liable if somebody uses their product to scam people, set people up for robbery, or lure children into sex acts. Let's just sue them all. If one of your customers can't get a job and commits suicide, you are liable if his family sues you for writing his resume.

The alcohol industry might have something to say about this too........since the death and destruction created by alcohol would be a trial lawyers wet dream.....if they could sue them ......

 

[2aguy]

Well, it may not make me popular, but it will make them all dead, so then what do you plan to do?

Sorry, man, when the ATF shows up, you'll be crying like a little baby, "Please don't take my guns, I love them!!!"

Yeah, because that was the expression on his face when he bought the gun. I await your video of that.

So now you think on top of a FEDERAL background check, the gun store should start calling their schools too? Then you wonder why we don't want to see Democrats in any form of power in this country?

yes, I do.

I expect the same level of scrutiny for buying a gun that you should have when getting a job.

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me. They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers. They checked my credit. They checked my criminal record. They made me pee in a cup.

If they had performed that kind of background check on Holmes, they would have found he was nuts and his school was in the process of expelling him for being.. nuts.

But since you are a free market kind of guy, I'm all for a free market solution. Let the gun industry run it's own background checks, and let the victims of gun violence take the gun industry to court when some fool who thinks he's The Joker buys a gun and shoots up a theater. I promise you, the gun industry will very tightly control who they are giving guns to after that.

When I got my last job, they did a full background check on me. They talked to several of my former co-workers and employers. They checked my credit. They checked my criminal record. They made me pee in a cup.

And since they still hired you, you show us what a failure background checks are........

 

[Ben Thomson]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

If you need more than ten rounds to hit what your aiming at maybe you don't need a gun.

Wow....did you take all morning to come up with that stupid post?

Nope..about ten seconds to figure out why some people should not have guns...stop whining over not being able to have extended magazines. Go to the range and learn how to hit what your aiming at with the first shot