Ballot Proposal To Overturn Magazine Limits?

Least we forget.....the Emperor's orders to his troops (and the cost of thest initiatives - flawed - be damned.....FED Debt $$$$ 17 TRILLION and climbing):

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence. 01/16/2013

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

<snip> (please see link for #4-22)

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... z2I9yuH450

archer wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote: It isn't about guns, it is about control.

DOMA, it isn't about marriage, it's about control.

And all DOMA does is inform any court which reviews the legislation what the legislators had in mind when they used specific terms within the legislation. Given that marriage has, until recently, always referred to the union of two people of opposite sexes, I fail to see why the clarification of this reality contained in DOMA is such a sticking point with some. Clearly the legislators could not have been referring to same sex couples when the legislation at issue was written because nowhere in this Union were two people of the same sex being married. When one of the States was thinking of providing a new definition for marriage, the Congress simply stated that all of the legislation contained in the US Code was written with a specific definition in mind. If SCOTUS wants to throw out any and all tax incentives attached to being married because those laws were not written with same sex marriage in mind, I guess that is within their powers, but DOMA itself is simply a clarification of legislative intent given the majority, if not all, of the legislation on the federal books was written when marriage had but a single definition, so the term itself was not defined within the legislation.

Do you really think that SCOTUS has the power to tell the Congress what its intent was when it was writing laws? That would truly be an unprecedented action by the court if it dared to venture into that territory.

Last I heard, ALL of the new gun-control laws that passed were headed to the Governor's desk for signing....

Whatever the Administration can do through executive action, (that's being blocked by the usual obstructionists), that will help bring down the number of gun-related deaths, is FINE BY ME....

The blog tracking the ballot proposal is here...Hopefully we can stop this bad law. Freedom is never regained once lost.

http://putittothepeople.blogspot.com/

There will also be an initiative and a court challenge addressing the background check required for personal sale of guns between individual citizens........A BLATANT violation of the Second.......once the "clerks" implement, how will the clerks (not the people) define the criteria for denial.......it is about power and control, nothing more. Will it devolve to traffic violations, jaywalking ??........probably. In our own way this madness is a effort to take the arms protected by the Constitution from the citizens........couple that with the militarization of police since 911.........think about it carefully.........

RECALL those that voted for this madness......including the Governor if he signs these into law........it is the recourse of first choice........and kick out the CO legislators that voted for these laws in 2014.......

No, actually, Colorado is pretty much a BLUE state now... Deal with it...

For every one of the 4% of actual gun-nuts, there are going to be a LOT MORE OF US that worked hard to get our state legislators elected who will be out working HARD for their reelection the next time. And the numbers already show that the number Coloradans who are FOR every one of the gun-control pieces of legislation outnumber the forces against by a MINIMUM of 60-40%....

95 percent of voters agree that people with "serious mental health problems" should be prevented from owning a gun.
80 percent of voters agree that judges should be able to order someone who is "convicted of domestic violence or given a restraining order" to surrender their guns to the court.
80 percent of voters agree that all private gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and be subject to a background check.
65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.

Ignore those polls at your own risk... (You were sucking down the Rasmussen Kool-Aid for RMoney's victory all the way up to the point where Karl Rove melted-down on live TV on FauxNews....)

Gun people, I thought .45 cal 1911's has 7 round mags. Am I wrong. I know for a fact the a S&W .45 mod. 457 has a seven round mag.


"
“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Cuomo told reporters. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.” Calling the move a “technical correction,” the governor is urging lawmakers to amend the law to allow the sale of magazines that hold ten rounds, though the legislation would still prohibit citizens from loading more than seven rounds into the ten-round magazines. "


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/34 ... na-johnson

I have a 1911 and own both seven round & eight round magazines that fit inside the grip. There are also extended 10 round and 15 round magazines that extend below the grip.