Real Consequences of Colorado Gun Control Laws

July 2, 2013

New York and Colorado were first to enact new gun control legislation in the wake of the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary shooting on December 14, 2012. Both have suffered ridiculous unintended consequences for doing so. Both states are facing fierce opposition to their new laws too from citizens, law enforcement, gun rights groups, in lawsuits and, in the case of Colorado, a recall election for 1-2 politicians.

This article discusses in detail why one part of Colorado's new gun control law is unenforceable as written without breaking a law - either Colorado's or the US Constitution. It doesn't go into the Constitution part but there's that pesky thing about 'depriving of property' in there that has a direct bearing on this situation. "The Colorado Bureau of investigation “advises local law enforcement to ignore and violate new Colorado gun laws." " That's right, law enforcement is going to violate the law in order to follow the law. Ridiculous.

The bottom line is that if a so-called "high capacity" magazine is stolen, with or without its firearm, and it was recovered by police, returning it to the owner would be a violation of the new Draconian gun control laws which prohibit any TRANSFER (not just sale) of "high capacity" magazines even though they are grandfathered in the new law. In most cases these are really standard capacity magazines that were designed with the firearm but Colorado now defines "high capacity" as being more than 15 rounds, not as restrictive as New York's 7-round limit or the 10-round limit of California and other states.

Please, tell me how such a poorly written law is either "common sense" or "reasonable" because that's what gun control advocates have been using as their mantra as they push their agenda across the country.

New York was in such a hurry that they violated their own state's constitution in ramming through the new bill and it was so poorly written that it didn't allow for the fact that 7-round or fewer magazines didn't exist for many, perhaps most, handguns in common usage and it didn't exempt law enforcement officers (LEO) from the ridiculous and overly restrictive 7-round magazine capacity limit. It has also resulted in wrongful CONFISCATION of firearms from at least one New York citizen.

When I first began writing about the gun control debate I mentioned unintended consequences as being one of the risk in pushing through any new legislation so quickly. Gun rights people are well aware that gun control advocates are exactly the wrong people who should be writing such laws because of their ignorance as a group of the firearms, the technology, the issues and the facts. Their motivation and agenda, hidden or otherwise, is also very much in question. There's no doubt that some have good intentions even if they're misguided but there's also NO doubt some are the "gun grabbers" that vocal gun rights advocates scream about. They've been caught admitting it in their own words numerous times. So which is it? Is this an "unintended consequence" or was this by design by the "gun grabbers"?

http://www.examiner.com/article/sheriff-says-cbi-advises-breaking-law-stolen-gun-owners-to-be-victimized-twice

===
July 27, 2013

Well, here's a real consequence of Colorado's new gun control laws that gun control advocates didn't count on.

The seemingly very popular among gun control advocates, but completely ineffective in reducing gun violence, "gun buy back" programs are now illegal as planned in Colorado - and probably in other states too.

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_23717880/organizers-cancel-boulder-gun-buyback-at-request-sheriff

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/25/gun-buyback-canceled-because-new-gun-laws/

Personally, I think the whole thing is silly. If these people are so anxious to get rid of unwanted firearms, can't they just turn them into their local police departments directly and ask that they be disposed of, without personal financial reward? You don't see news articles covering long lines or hordes of people wanting to do something for nothing on this topic though, do you? I don't recall the specifics now of Colorado's new gun control laws. It'd be significant if the background check requirement applies to "sale" vs. "transfers". If transfers are not covered then these people could "give" their firearms to a representative person or organization who could then dispose of them in bulk. To be safe, it'd have to be without reward because 'receiving something of value' for 'something of value' is probably considered a sale, though there are probably ways around that too for the creative minded.

Another of those consequences is included in this 8:24 video beginning around the 1:00 mark. This does discuss the need for background investigations for transfers or loans of more than 72 hours. Listen to how ridiculous this is. Loan a gun to someone to go hunting? If the transfer is for more than 72 hours then get, and pay for, a background check. Return the firearm? Get and pay for a background check. Go on vacation or business travel for more than 72 hours and leave your guns with someone else? Same thing on both ends. As written, it even applies to sheriff's deputies who are taking possession of firearms in the line of duty! Evacuate your house with your firearms due to wildfire or flood and go to a friends house? If the guns are left there more than 72 hours then a background check is needed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx12J2pSb8A

===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/07/real-consequences-of-colorado-gun.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Colorado Firearms Blogs
So-Called "Gun Buy Backs" Illegal?