Two new Colorado Gun Bills Pass State House


February 13, 2013, 12:46 AM
For those of us from Colorado, any opinion on if these will go through? In all honesty, I'm ok with stricter back ground checks. Limiting magazine size is asinine, though. Only insanely ignorant people would consider that a roadblock to gun violence.


If you enjoyed reading about "Two new Colorado Gun Bills Pass State House" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 13, 2013, 06:02 AM
What don't gun owners understand about more background checks?

Background checks = Registration = Confiscation.

Its not NRA propaganda. In 2011 only 64 people were actually investigated for lying on a background check and of those only 42 were prosecuted. THEY AREN'T DOING ANY GOOD. The gov doesn't have the manpower or the money to enforce it and it just costs us more in the long run to let them get away with it.

February 13, 2013, 07:35 AM
So after reading the article it looks like these bills did not pass a house vote, as they have not yet been voted on. Seems that they made it through a committee in the house, so now they will have to be voted on at some point.

February 13, 2013, 10:38 AM
yep, passed the Judiciary committee. on to the next committee or a floor vote then the senate side.

as for will they pass? the BG check is a done deal. you even support it....
(but good luck finding a FFL who will deal with the hassle of a transfer for $10. This will kill legal private sales.)

February 13, 2013, 04:14 PM
The OP illustrates why I've redefined my location.

Two state legislators who took the time to reply to my emails pointed me toward these bills and urged that we not only continue emailing about our opposition to the new gun controls bills, but to also email in support of these.

Yo Mama
February 13, 2013, 04:27 PM
Background checks = Registration = Confiscation.

No it doesn't. Stop saying this. Background checks and registration are 2 entirely different things. I agree that registration does equal confiscation however.

THEY AREN'T DOING ANY GOOD. The gov doesn't have the manpower or the money to enforce it and it just costs us more in the long run to let them get away with it.

I agree with you fully in this statement.

February 13, 2013, 05:36 PM
Background checks = Registration = Confiscation.

Background checks do not equal registration, they do provide the information to create a data base of persons who have recently purchased a firearm. Registration does not equal confiscation, but does create a list of firearm owners. Could the information on this list be used to help with the confiscation of firearms, sadly yes.

Old Fuff
February 13, 2013, 07:33 PM
The current Universal Background Check bills, both in Congress and various state legislatures, require that with few exceptions ALL FIREARMS TRANSFERS MUST BE MADE THROUGH AN FFL!

All firearms transfers made through an FFL must be logged in the dealer's "bound book," and a 4473 form be filled out by the dealer and buyer. The bound book contains information about both the seller and buyer, as well as particulars about the firearm(s). The FFL is required to keep both the bound book and 4473 forms for a period of 20 years. If they go out of business at an earlier date the records must be turned over to the BATF&E.

After Universal Background Checks and transfers must be done by an FFL, all that's necessary is a slight amendment to the law requiring that copies of the records be submitted to the BATF&E and the registration database will soon be up and running.

Be careful what you wish for, beause you might get it...

February 14, 2013, 09:18 AM
The OP illustrates why I've redefined my location.

I would have suggested "colonarado"

February 14, 2013, 12:01 PM
I think you'll see from this over-the-top, politically correct (in their own minds) legislature:

1) Universal background checks. This will overload and crash an already way overloaded CBI background and firearm check system.

2) Mag capacity! The anti-2A's want ten rounds, pressure on Gov Hick and his lobbyists... fifteen. If Magpul gets their pressure on... perhaps there will be no mag capacity restriction. I kind of doubt this because this legislature is out for CCW permit holder's blood!

3) Reinstatement of banning CCW on college campuses. Pretty much a done deal.

4) Ten to twenty five dollar fee for firearm background checks... done deal! You can bet that the libs will siphon off monies from the buyer to other programs the libs want!

If the Colorado Legislature had their way... they would rescind all CCW permits in the state... the bastards are that crazy these days.

The expression "Tis a Privilege to Live in Colorado" ...

No more folks! The left wing whackos are out of their minds!

February 14, 2013, 12:32 PM
Forgive me, but...

How can a 'State' force 'Federally Licensed' people (FFL holding Gun Dealers) to do background checks?

February 14, 2013, 12:51 PM
they are using an existing federal licensing framework instead of creating a redundant state system.

The (proposed) law says nothing about a FFL being required to do the transfer, just that the individual buyer and seller must use a licensed FFL.

Old Fuff
February 14, 2013, 01:03 PM
How can a 'State' force 'Federally Licensed' people (FFL holding Gun Dealers) to do background checks?

No they can't, but the legislators in question that passed this don't know that.

On the other hand, the federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement agencies to make background checks. They tried and got slapped down by the Supreme Court, which is the reason NICS was formed in the first place.

They also can't force FFL's to do transfers. If they do they can charge any fee they choose to.

The 2014 election is going to be an interesting one. :evil:

February 14, 2013, 02:35 PM
Shudder if this should pass, but what are the details? I hate to even ask these questions...

Does the FFL transfer the weapon into their possession during the week(s) long background check delay? Do they record it into their bound book?

Where do they store said weapon, what if its damaged?

If the transfer is denied must they then run a check on the original seller before then turn the firearm back over?

Does the firearm even need to be present during the transaction? How does the FFL know the seller has the right serial number?

What a nightmare...

February 14, 2013, 06:12 PM
here it the bill text. the answers are in there (and pretty easy to find)

specifically 18-12-112 (2) (b) on page 3
the FFL is required to treat it exactly the same as if it was a retail sale as far as record keeping. This would include logging in books. Since the gun is in the FFL books, it needs to go through a check before going to anyone, including back to the seller.

Ya know, I don't see anything in there about collecting sales tax. A retail transfer would involve tax though. I bet that was just an oversight though, it'll be fixed later.

February 14, 2013, 06:26 PM
They are up for second reading in the house tomorrow (vote). Last chance to contact state reps before it is off to the Senate.

I have my opinion on what will happen but with the actual fact so close I'll refrain from guesses.

Hickenlooper announced he'd sign them.

C.F. Plinker
February 14, 2013, 10:58 PM
Remember that you will need a background check any time possesion of a gun changes, not just when you buy or sell a gun. So, if you and a friend are out shooting at tin cans somewhere and you trade guns for a few shots you need a background check. Or if you are over at your daughter's place and she asks you to clean her rifle possesion is transferred as soon as you pick it up and you need a background check. There are provisions in the bill for temporary transfers where title and ownership are not changed but these only apply at gun ranges, target matches, hunting camps, and the residence of the transferee who feels that they are in danger.

This bill does a lot more than insure that everyone who buys a gun has to have a background check. And the penalty if you are convicted is the loss of all firearms for two years as well as being put on the prohibited persons list.

February 16, 2013, 08:36 AM
In all honesty, I'm ok with stricter back ground checks.

You will get your background check along with a magazine ban and probably an AWB.

February 16, 2013, 09:08 AM
You will get your background check along with a magazine ban and probably an AWB.
otherwise all that he deserves, it's just a shame fellow Colorado gun owners who don't believe the same will also suffer.

February 16, 2013, 09:09 AM
Colorado is getting exactly what it voted for.

February 16, 2013, 10:59 PM
My condolences to the people of Colorado.

Your politicians are turning your state into another California, New York, or Illinois.

February 16, 2013, 11:10 PM
In all honesty, I'm ok with stricter back ground checks.

You like to leave a window or two on your home unlocked too... to give the more traditional criminals a fighting chance too?

February 17, 2013, 12:27 AM
The White Paper from the US Department of Justice, commenting on proposed gun laws, stated that for Universal Background Checks to work, there has to be gun registration.

Old Fuff
February 17, 2013, 11:47 AM
The White Paper from the US Department of Justice, commenting on proposed gun laws, stated that for Universal Background Checks to work, there has to be gun registration

Do you have a link to the above cited document?

February 17, 2013, 12:10 PM
All 4 of those bills passed on a voice vote. On Monday they will have a roll call vote where the Reps will have to stand and be counted yea or nay. If we do not get 5 rural Dems on our side it's a done deal. After that it is off to the Senate for a rubber stamp of approval, then to Gov. Chickenpoopers office for signature. After that, Colorado will be a much safer state for the criminal element to do business in. Not so much for law abiding citizens.

I would like to watch the votes online on Monday, but I have a colonoscopy scheduled at 11:30. I wonder which I will enjoy less?

Jim K
February 17, 2013, 03:57 PM
The federal background check does not equal registration, except that there might be (depending on whether the government obeys the law, which is like being asked to believe the devil is a choirboy) registration of gun owners. But the Maryland "background check" provides the state with gun information and is absolutely registration, even though the state has lied about it on numerous occasions.


Bartholomew Roberts
February 18, 2013, 01:08 AM
The federal background check requires dealers to keep a copy of the 4473, record the sale in their bound book and turn those records over to the ATF when they go out of business. It is decentralized registration; but it is certainly registration.

See here:

February 18, 2013, 02:58 PM
The white paper has been posted on General Gun Discussions

see "Justice Dept policy recommendations memo" from Texan Scott

February 18, 2013, 08:15 PM
Well, after recovering from anesthesia, I awoke to find that all 4 bills passed the Colorado House. CCW on campus, banned, UBC, magazine limits, and fees for UBC passed and are all going to the Senate. What a sad day for Colorado.

February 18, 2013, 08:47 PM
CCW on campus, banned,

This really shows their true evil intent. Trained, licensed citizens on campus can (and have) prevented mass shootings, not to mention other violent crimes. These politicians want to ban legal campus carry. Therefore my only logical conclusion is they wish to increase violent crime on campus and to increase the probability of a successful mass shooting, most like as a way to further their anti-gun agenda. Disgusting.

February 18, 2013, 08:54 PM
What happens if someone gets caught with a handgun at a college, has a license, under this new bill? Is it a criminal offense?

February 18, 2013, 09:10 PM
My condolences as well.This is certainly sad to see.Perhaps during re-election you will vote better.

February 18, 2013, 09:23 PM
Doesn't it still have to pass the state senate?

February 18, 2013, 09:32 PM
Yes, the bills now go to the Senate where they will be debated and maybe changed yet again. It ain't over yet in Colorado. I hope people were listening when 1224's sponsor said that these were just part of what is coming in the way of bills and then laws.

February 19, 2013, 11:57 AM
This is the letter I sent to my state senator, John Morse, pointing out the absurdities of these two bills.

I would like to call your attention to provisions in the above named bills.

In HR13-1229, sections 1 (6) (d) (I and II) allow for the temporary transfer of a firearm in a private home, but only if an imminent danger of death or injury exists. That is, if you were to visit my home and admire a firearm that I legally own, and if I (after properly checking clear on the firearm, of course) would let you hold the firearm, we would both be guilty of a misdemeanor. If fact, if another member of my family were to hold that firearm, it would be a crime unless I first make to them a "bona fide gift" of it. Do you not find this absurd?

In HR13-1224, sections 1 (2) (a) (i and II) allow a person who owns a large-capacity magazine on the effective date of the law to keep it, but only if he "maintains continuous possession of the large-capacity magazine." Continuous means that if I had a large-capacity magazine on the effective date, as soon as I placed it into a safe or some other location, I would no longer be in possession of it. When I picked it up again, I would commit a crime. Do you not find this absurd?

As your constituent, and a constant (if not continuous) voter, I urge you to vote against these bills. As law, they would do nothing to curb crime but would cause problems for law-abiding citizens.

February 20, 2013, 07:26 AM
Well stated MH

Zak Smith
February 21, 2013, 01:47 AM

February 21, 2013, 03:33 PM
Recieved replys for Sen Kerr and Sen Newell today.....typical thank you for your interest.......not sure where they stand. Kerr did state that his mails "were overwhelmingly against these bills" Keep the pressure on!

Bartholomew Roberts
February 23, 2013, 03:09 PM

Governor Hickenlooper is apparently reconsidering some of his earlier statements on these bills in light of public testimony on the matter. Keep it up!

February 24, 2013, 07:41 PM
Don't even consider believing that Hickenlooper is on the fence. He has lied to us once after Aurora, just to save the election. He doesn't sign these after the hit his desk he's done in the (D) party. Either way he goes, he's probably done as governor in 2014. It could only further his career to sign them.

Zak Smith
February 24, 2013, 07:55 PM

February 25, 2013, 10:03 AM
Have you emailed any of these pictures to the members of the Colorado Senate? :evil:

If you enjoyed reading about "Two new Colorado Gun Bills Pass State House" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!