And so it begins

A) You aren't Fred;
That statute simply indicates that certain LE agencies will "be notified"... There's nothing there about requiring an arrest.

I'm still waiting for FRED to provide 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 his question.

Nice try, but that's not an answer to the question posed.



We need to make background checks mandatory even though we aren't enforcing the current laws against illegal and straw purchases right now.

We DO "need to make background checks mandatory". And every time the background check turns up someone who SHOULDN'T be allowed to purchase a weapon, that's one less wacko out there running around with one. And we obviously aren't "enforcing" laws every minute against murder (because people still get murdered); and against armed robbery (because armed robberies are still happening); and bad-check passing (because people still pass bad checks)...And NONE of that means that we shouldn't enforce background checks... Conservative Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

You need some better talking-points other than the ones the NRA is giving you... The ones you're using don't hold water...

Once it has been determined that a crime has been committed under C.R.S 24-33.5-424. then C.R.S 18-12-108 will deal with that.

LJ is correct in that simply being denied is not a reason to be arrested by itself. But, denials are supposed to be investigated by the proper jurisdiction.

LadyJazzer wrote: A) You aren't Fred;
That statute simply indicates that certain LE agencies will "be notified"... There's nothing there about requiring an arrest.

I'm still waiting for FRED to provide 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 his question.

Nice try, but that's not an answer to the question posed.



We need to make background checks mandatory even though we aren't enforcing the current laws against illegal and straw purchases right now.

We DO "need to make background checks mandatory". And every time the background check turns up someone who SHOULDN'T be allowed to purchase a weapon, that's one less wacko out there running around with one. And we obviously aren't "enforcing" laws every minute against murder (because people still get murdered); and against armed robbery (because armed robberies are still happening); and bad-check passing (because people still pass bad checks)...And NONE of that means that we shouldn't enforce background checks... Conservative Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

You need some better talking-points other than the ones the NRA is giving you... The ones you're using don't hold water...

You're right I'm not Fred.

Sorry it's not the answer you wanted to hear but it is the correct answer.

Laws do not prevent crime they only serve a purpose after the a crime has been committed.

gmule wrote: Laws do not prevent crime they only serve a purpose after the a crime has been committed.

Unless a background check keeps a weapon out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have one... Unless it keeps an incompetent driver who cannot pass a driving test from operating a vehicle on public roads.... Unless they keep someone who hasn't passed a test on how to fly a plane from going into the air in one as a pilot.... Unless.......

gmule wrote: Sorry it's not the answer you wanted to hear but it is the correct answer.

Actually, it was EXACTLY the answer I wanted to hear, since it shoots down Fred's assertion in an earlier post that law-enforcement wasn't enforcing laws about crimes having to do with failed background checks. I said then that simply failing a background check was not a crime requiring law-enforcement resources... And you just proved my point.

LadyJazzer wrote:

gmule wrote: Laws do not prevent crime they only serve a purpose after the a crime has been committed.

Unless a background check keeps a weapon out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have one... Unless it keeps an incompetent driver who cannot pass a driving test from operating a vehicle on public roads.... Unless they keep someone who hasn't passed a test on how to fly a plane from going into the air in one as a pilot.... Unless.......

One big difference you are forgetting.
Gun ownership is a right and driving a car or flying airplanes are a privilege. Governments can't grant rights but they can grant privileges

Governments may restrict rights, including the the type, use and transfer of ownership of firearms under the 2nd Amendment.

Something the Dog Said wrote: So since this alleged "boycott" of hunting in Colorado, there has been the following report:

Applications for Colorado big-game limited hunting licenses came in so fast Monday and Tuesday that the computer and credit-card processing systems crashed.
The deadline to apply for those licenses was Tuesday. Colorado Parks and Wildlife said high volume caused a link for online applications to crash for about three hours Monday night.


Read more: Procrastinating hunters crash Colorado application system at deadline - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ ... z2PPSzDe12
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
Follow us: @Denverpost on Twitter | Denverpost on Facebook

While applications for draw big game licenses are up, the actual results won't be known until the fall and when OTC licenses become available, that is when the bulk of out of state hunters decide to hunt Colorado. Personally I don't expect a large if any drop in out of state hunters.

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


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.

The "AR-15" is available in .308 which is a very effective elk round.



edit to add: isn't that a nice looking firearm? :droolpuddle:

gmule wrote: Gun ownership is a right and driving a car or flying airplanes are a privilege. Governments can't grant rights but they can grant privileges

You didn't say anything about "Rights" vs. Privileges... You said:

Laws do not prevent crime they only serve a purpose after the a crime has been committed.

I said:

LadyJazzer wrote: Unless a background check keeps a weapon out of the hands of someone who shouldn't have one... Unless it keeps an incompetent driver who cannot pass a driving test from operating a vehicle on public roads.... Unless they keep someone who hasn't passed a test on how to fly a plane from going into the air in one as a pilot.... Unless.......

Please try to keep up....If you want to talk about "laws", we'll talk about "laws"...If you want to change the discussion to "rights vs. privileges", we can have that discussion... But I won't play musical-chairs.


The government already restricted the right own assault weapons... 1994 - 2004 ... It was constitutional then; it's constitutional now. The Second is no more an "absolute" right than the First is...

...And I haven't forgotten anything.....

Something the Dog Said wrote: Governments may restrict rights, including the the type, use and transfer of ownership of firearms under the 2nd Amendment.

Your opinion. I disagree. I'm sure we will find out eventually how the supreme court sees it.

Rights can't be restricted. I know you will say you can't yell fire in a crowded theater...but that is just location based. They can't restrict you from yelling fire in general. I would agree that the govt could restrict you from carrying a gun into a govt facility if they chose (and they do).