Magazine Bill Amended

FredHayek wrote:

Mtn Gramma wrote:

A large-capacity magazine that is manufactured in Colorado on or
after the effective date of the bill must include a serial number and the
date upon which the large-capacity magazine was manufactured or
assembled. The serial number and date must be legibly and conspicuously
engraved or cast upon the outer surface of the large-capacity magazine.
The Colorado bureau of investigation may promulgate rules that may
require a large-capacity magazine that is manufactured on or after the
effective date of the bill to bear identifying information in addition to the
serial number and date of assembly.
A person who manufactures a large-capacity magazine in Colorado
in violation of the new provision commits a class 2 misdemeanor.

I'm assuming the first paragraph applies to companies and the 2nd paragraph to individuals.

So this new rule about individually serializing hi-capacity magazines might still encourage Magpul to take their 900 jobs and head to a free state. Although serialized magazines might be desirable to goverment and law enforcement for inventory control.

I wonder which would be cheaper -- staying put and stamping magazines, or pulling up stakes and starting over elsewhere. Relocating can be terribly expensive. And there's no guarantee that the state they relocate to will remain "free".

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

After giving your comment more thought, how does this legislation create a gun registration model? I don't see it. My understanding is that no records are kept by any government agency in regard to the actual firearm purchase. Instead it is up to the private entities to maintain records regarding the chain of purchase of firearms. Nowhere does this legislation create a registery, and no one will know what firearms you own, other than the seller of a firearm to you.

LE typically obtains the serial number of a firearm used in a crime, then contacts the manufacturer who provides the entity to whom they sold the firearm. The chain of custody is then followed from seller to purchaser to the final purchaser.

No one keeps a registery nor is there any contemplation of creating one in Colorado. That is just another NRA scare tactic.

Because the only way to keep this "chain of custody" record straight is to do so. This information is already readily available to LE. Is it in the bill, no, not as far as I know, but IF it were to pass, they would realize what an impossible thing to track...so we need a registration system.

It isn't scare tactics...it is reality. Many politicians would love to ban guns. Many would love to confiscate. They just don't have the #'s....yet.

That would be scare tactics, since there is nothing in any legislation, there is nothing in existing laws nor are there any proposals to add such registry to the laws. It is simply hyperbole to claim that the only way to keep the chain of custody straight is by such a registry, particularly since the existing method has been in use for decades. Nope, this is all scare tactics since it has no basis in reality.

No, it is the only practical way to do it. Regardless of whether or not it is in the "legislation", guns must be specifically tracked, which leads to registration. The existing method does not track the specific gun, only that you have a gun. If, as you desire, you want to hold people liable for a gun crime not committed by that person, but rather by a criminal, you must track a specific serial #...in other words, register it.

Magpul announced today on their Facebook page they will leave if the magazine bill passes. Only makes sense, why should they produce magazines and pay corporate taxes to the state of Colorado when their own products are banned here?

Hopefully Colt and other manufacturers move out of the northeast as more and more guns are banned.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: So if you sell a car to a drunken individual to drive off your property, you do not feel that you are responsible in any way for the death of the children playing in the street next door after he runs them over?

The proposed bill would only make you liable if you choose to sell a firearm without doing a background check. Simple, don't be a criminal and do the damn background check.

False analogy. You are saying I should run a background check to see if the person I'm selling the car to drinks. Then, if they run over the neighbor kid, I'm responsible.

The proposed bill would only work under a gun registration model, which I am very opposed to. It is nobody's business who has guns, unless they are felons.

After giving your comment more thought, how does this legislation create a gun registration model? I don't see it. My understanding is that no records are kept by any government agency in regard to the actual firearm purchase. Instead it is up to the private entities to maintain records regarding the chain of purchase of firearms. Nowhere does this legislation create a registery, and no one will know what firearms you own, other than the seller of a firearm to you.

LE typically obtains the serial number of a firearm used in a crime, then contacts the manufacturer who provides the entity to whom they sold the firearm. The chain of custody is then followed from seller to purchaser to the final purchaser.

No one keeps a registery nor is there any contemplation of creating one in Colorado. That is just another NRA scare tactic.

Because the only way to keep this "chain of custody" record straight is to do so. This information is already readily available to LE. Is it in the bill, no, not as far as I know, but IF it were to pass, they would realize what an impossible thing to track...so we need a registration system.

It isn't scare tactics...it is reality. Many politicians would love to ban guns. Many would love to confiscate. They just don't have the #'s....yet.

That would be scare tactics, since there is nothing in any legislation, there is nothing in existing laws nor are there any proposals to add such registry to the laws. It is simply hyperbole to claim that the only way to keep the chain of custody straight is by such a registry, particularly since the existing method has been in use for decades. Nope, this is all scare tactics since it has no basis in reality.

No, it is the only practical way to do it. Regardless of whether or not it is in the "legislation", guns must be specifically tracked, which leads to registration. The existing method does not track the specific gun, only that you have a gun. If, as you desire, you want to hold people liable for a gun crime not committed by that person, but rather by a criminal, you must track a specific serial #...in other words, register it.

No, guns are not "specifically tracked" by any government agency. They have not been in the past, nor will they in the future. As you well know, guns have serial numbers which are logged at the manufacturer. If a gun is used in a crime, LE goes to the manufacturer, who supplies them with the name of the dealer to which the firearm was sold. LE then contacts that dealer and obtains the name of the entity to whom the dealer sold the firearm. This continues until the final purchaser is identified according to records. This is all done through a court order which established that there was probable cause for the search.

Nope, it is ridiculous scare tactics to claim that this legislation creates a gun registry. But you know that.

How would tracking people with mental health issues be done? Who would decide which mental health issues would be the ones where someone isn't allowed to own or use a weapon? Where would authorities get this information?

If I'm a parent of an adult that is deemed mentally unhealthy enough to be told they cannot ever own or use a gun, does that mean that I'm going to be vetted to make sure I keep my guns locked up securely so my adult child can't get to them? Who polices that?

What mental health issues are going to preclude someone from purchasing, owning, or using a gun?

And, if a mental health check must be done on everyone who purchases a gun, who pays for that check?

This whole issue has to address not only people who want weapons and ammo and keeping them away from criminals or other users that would harm others, but also the mental health aspect of it, which in my opinion needs a lot of thought and action than making high capacity magazines illegal or assault style weapons illegal.

CB,
Very important questions you raise. Would depression prevent you from owning a handgun to defend yourself? It would probably cut down on the suicide toll.

And how would this be decided, start a treatment and medication plan and have to surrender your guns to law enforcement until you are cured? Or forever?

ComputerBreath wrote: How would tracking people with mental health issues be done? Who would decide which mental health issues would be the ones where someone isn't allowed to own or use a weapon? Where would authorities get this information?

If I'm a parent of an adult that is deemed mentally unhealthy enough to be told they cannot ever own or use a gun, does that mean that I'm going to be vetted to make sure I keep my guns locked up securely so my adult child can't get to them? Who polices that?

What mental health issues are going to preclude someone from purchasing, owning, or using a gun?

And, if a mental health check must be done on everyone who purchases a gun, who pays for that check?

This whole issue has to address not only people who want weapons and ammo and keeping them away from criminals or other users that would harm others, but also the mental health aspect of it, which in my opinion needs a lot of thought and action than making high capacity magazines illegal or assault style weapons illegal.

the current law regarding mental health is only those individuals who have been adjudicated as a danger to others are listed in the background checks. This information is presently only updated every few months. In order to have an individual adjudicated, the individual is evaluated by mental health professionals who present their findings before a judge. The evaluation can be done voluntarily, or a mental health professional can request the individual be held for 72 hours for evaluation.
Other than that, medical professionals are prevented from disclosing information about their patients.
Rep. Levy has proposed legislation to have this information sent to the CBI in real time rather than every few months.

There has been some discussion about creating a lower standard than adjudication that would allow mental health professionals to disclose information without violating HIPPA or other standards, if they believe a patient would pose a threat if allowed access to firearms. However, this creates problems with patients trusting their caregiver if they fear that their conversations might be used against them. So it is not an easy answer.

James Holmes psychiatrist was close to having him held for evaluation as well as Lanza's mother regarding her son.

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, guns are not "specifically tracked" by any government agency. They have not been in the past, nor will they in the future. As you well know, guns have serial numbers which are logged at the manufacturer. If a gun is used in a crime, LE goes to the manufacturer, who supplies them with the name of the dealer to which the firearm was sold. LE then contacts that dealer and obtains the name of the entity to whom the dealer sold the firearm. This continues until the final purchaser is identified according to records. This is all done through a court order which established that there was probable cause for the search.

Nope, it is ridiculous scare tactics to claim that this legislation creates a gun registry. But you know that.

But if there is a new law regarding liability, suddenly there is going to be huge demand for this information...likely by attorneys. They will decide that the only reasonable way to do this to handle the load is to make a database.

It isn't a scare tactic...you dislike my ability to have whatever gun I want, so you like to demean what I say..."but you know that" (another childish debate comment).

I would be interested in the mental health issue though...not sure how it would be carried out, but it would definitely be a better solution than any sort of gun control.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: No, guns are not "specifically tracked" by any government agency. They have not been in the past, nor will they in the future. As you well know, guns have serial numbers which are logged at the manufacturer. If a gun is used in a crime, LE goes to the manufacturer, who supplies them with the name of the dealer to which the firearm was sold. LE then contacts that dealer and obtains the name of the entity to whom the dealer sold the firearm. This continues until the final purchaser is identified according to records. This is all done through a court order which established that there was probable cause for the search.

Nope, it is ridiculous scare tactics to claim that this legislation creates a gun registry. But you know that.

But if there is a new law regarding liability, suddenly there is going to be huge demand for this information...likely by attorneys. They will decide that the only reasonable way to do this to handle the load is to make a database.

It isn't a scare tactic...you dislike my ability to have whatever gun I want, so you like to demean what I say..."but you know that" (another childish debate comment).

I would be interested in the mental health issue though...not sure how it would be carried out, but it would definitely be a better solution than any sort of gun control.

The "lawyers" don't make the decision in regard to any database. Such a database could only be created through legislation. That is not being proposed in the current legislation or even considered. This is a classic scare tactic, creating a fictitious straw man, then claiming that the current legislation would enact that straw man. The only way to track ownership of a particular firearm is as I have repeatedly outlined, obtaining a court order, starting with the manufacturer with the serial number and following each step of the chain of ownership. There is no registry, nor is there any registry being proposed or considered. Just because you are scared of it does not mean that it is even being considered.

That is not being proposed in the current legislation or even considered.

How do you know what is being considered?

Go ahead and believe what the administration tells you, I will continue to be skeptical.