And so it begins

Kind of sad IDPA decided to politicize shooting.

I don't think there are weapons even used in the IDPA that would violate Colorado State Law.

I enjoy shooting 45 ACP - and there's no weapons in my division that would be problematic.

As far as hunting is concerned - I'm not aware of any legitimate elk hunting rifles that would violate Colorado State Law.

The AR 15 is not a likely candidate for hunting. You need at least a 24 caliber round -- and the AR 15 is a .223 cartridge.

I didn't (and don't) support the recent legislation - but this is all downright silly rhetoric.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Washington Post...

Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”

Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."

Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

If you actually read the blog, the Post admits that they have no facts to contradict the 40% number, only criticizing him for using the only available data. But then there would be no outrage.

If you read the article, they certainly have facts to question the statistics. It's called statistical analysis. But then you would have to deal with the truth.

The truth is that according to the blog that you cited, the most reliable data available was that cited by the President. You (and the blog) can try to spin it, but no other data was cited. The blog criticized the analysis, but provided no better data.

Here... put this in your pipe...

70,291,049 Background Checks for Gun Purchases Under Obama
April 3, 2013

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
Subscribe to Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. RSS
There have been 70,291,049 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.

In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.

The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Add to that the first three months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393 and 2,209,407, respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 70,291,049.

Over the same time period, the number of background checks completed under President George W. Bush was 36,090,415, or about half the number conducted under Obama.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/r ... 033113.pdf

I guess the FBI is spinning figure too!!!

bailey bud wrote: Kind of sad IDPA decided to politicize shooting.

I don't think there are weapons even used in the IDPA that would violate Colorado State Law.

I enjoy shooting 45 ACP - and there's no weapons in my division that would be problematic.

As far as hunting is concerned - I'm not aware of any legitimate elk hunting rifles that would violate Colorado State Law.

The AR 15 is not a likely candidate for hunting. You need at least a 24 caliber round -- and the AR 15 is a .223 cartridge.

I didn't (and don't) support the recent legislation - but this is all downright silly rhetoric.

Silly rhetoric? Or exert their economic power? The bad side? The town that is suffering the economic impact probably would have voted against the new measures. They are punishing the state of Colorado, but the innocent town feels most of the effect.

FredHayek wrote: Lying on a 4473 is a felony, but people only tend to be arrested if they are commiting another felony, like trying to buy a gun on probation, or wanted on another felony.

I didn't ask you about "lying on a 4473"... I asked you to point me to the Colorado statute that says being turned down on a request is an offense for which you can be arrested?


Then we'd have to put a law-enforcement officer in every gun shop and at every gun-show to arrest the evil-doers on the spot if the check failed... And then we could get to listen to the gun-nuts screaming about "oppression, tyranny, jack-booted-thugs, tree-of-liberty-blood" bullsh*t.....

You wouldn't actually. Since background checks take time, sometimes a week or more, you can just have the police arrest the guy while he is waiting to be approved.
Is local law enforcement supposed to enforce federal laws? This sometimes is murky. Like are local sheriffs allowed to arrest people for violating immigration laws?

And at my gun shop, there are usually 2-3 off duty police officers hanging around talking.

So the answer--finally--is "NO, you CAN'T point me to any Colorado statute that says being turned down on a request is an offense for which you can be arrested."

It only took three pages, but at least I finally got an answer.

And, thanks for playing... So, your outrage-of-the-day that the "laws aren't being enforced" on people being denied a purchase is bullsh*t...

Glad we got that out of the way.

IIRC - the dealer knows when an applicant is rejected - but does not know why.

I suppose the CBI could get word that a known felon applied for a firearm - in which case, I'd call the dealer, and tell them to call the applicant and say "we got something for you - come on down."

LadyJazzer wrote: So the answer--finally--is "NO, you CAN'T point me to any Colorado statute that says being turned down on a request is an offense for which you can be arrested."

It only took three pages, but at least I finally got an answer.

And, thanks for playing... So, your outrage-of-the-day that the "laws aren't being enforced" on people being denied a purchase is bullsh*t...

Glad we got that out of the way.

But you still haven't shown the stats for how well Governor Hickenlooper and Attorney General Holder are enforcing current gun laws, including lying on a 4473.
Please provide any source...

I'm still waiting for your link to any Colorado statute that says being turned down on a request is an offense for which you can be arrested.

When you provide a source, then I'll worry about one for your question.

LadyJazzer wrote: And perhaps you can point me to the Colorado statute that says being turned down for a gun-purchase because of a failed background check is a crime requiring an arrest? I must have missed that one....

Source?.... (I'm still waiting...)

For your reading pleasure.


C.R.S 24-33.5-424.

(5) (a) Upon denial of a firearm transfer, the bureau shall notify the transferor and send notice of the denial to the NICS system, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 922 (t). In addition, the bureau shall immediately send notification of such denial and the basis for the denial to the federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over the area in which the transferee resides and in which the transferor conducts any business.