Semiautomatic firearm ban passes Colorado's House, heads to Senate ( apnews.com )

Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House on Sunday passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms, a major step for the legislation after roughly the same bill was swiftly killed by Democrats last year. 

The bill, which passed on a 35-27 vote, is now on its way to the Democratic-led state Senate. If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns. 

But even in a state plagued by some of the nation’s worst mass shootings, such legislation faces headwinds.

Colorado’s political history is purple, shifting blue only recently. The bill’s chances of success in the state Senate are lower than they were in the House, where Democrats have a 46-19 majority and a bigger far-left flank. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has indicated his wariness over such a ban.

slumlordthanatos ,

I feel like a better option here would be limits on magazine capacities. Limiting internal and box magazine capacities to 5-10 rounds on semiautomatic firearms could have the same effect without it being an outright ban. Maybe have different capacities for handguns and rifles.

This is just more ammo (heh) for 2nd Amendment voters. Being a bit more clever about it could convince some of them to drop their resistance.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

California did it and IIRC, that's going to the Supremes this year?

dogslayeggs ,

Yeah, CA's law has twice been overturned by federal judges (but is being allowed to stay in effect for now) and is on its way to the SC.

brygphilomena ,

I'll give up my guns when the cops do it first.

radiant_bloom ,

If only Americans could be like the Swiss, y’all could have your guns and none of the problems.

thantik ,

This will get struck down, and it'll be the one thing I agree with when it does. You can't just make everything except bolt-action rifles illegal. Semi-automatic firearms encompasses 99% of what people use for self defense in America. This is a clear violation of rights.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You can’t just make everything except bolt-action rifles illegal.

Britain did.

And if we're going on the intent of the founders, they mostly had muzzle-loaders in mind. They certainly didn't consider automatic weapons able to fire huge amounts of bullets extremely quickly.

ZoopZeZoop ,
jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Britain doesn't have a 2nd Amendment.

Now, if you want to repeal it, sure, there's a process for that...

Start by getting 290 votes in the House. The same body that struggles to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader is.

Then you get 67 votes in the Senate. The same body that struggles to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

Then, assuming you get all that, you need ratification from 38 states. In 2020, Biden and Trump split the states 25/25. So you need ALL the Biden states (good luck getting Georgia!) and 13 Trump states. For every Biden state you lose, you need +1 Trump state.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Unless you just have a sensible court that don't claim to be "Originalists" while at the same time ignoring the fact that the arms the founders were think of were not ones that didn't exist at the time.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Well, then you need to spend 50 years dedicated to changing the makeup of the Court the way the Republicans did with Roe... see you in 2074! Well, not me PERSONALLY, but you get the idea. ;)

BigMacHole ,

Agreed! It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have ANY form of Regulation on Arms! Why is it ILLEGAL for me to not be able to own a Grenade Launcher? UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

shalafi ,

Agreed. The 2A is a right, full stop. Doesn't matter if you or I like it, the courts agree, and have historically.

You'll get a dozen dumb arguments, but none will address the fact of the 2A. And there's no way it gets overturned given our amendment procedures.

This is actually a pretty dumb stunt. It's going to lose in court, zero doubt. And now there's more precedence.

kobra ,

Right or wrong it’s a constitutional right for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with hunting.

Similar to GOP and abortion, dems need to drop this fight. Let’s fix healthcare and save/improve more lives than almost everything else you could spend time on.

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

You're right. It has to due with being able to call up a militia. I don't see any of these gun stores asking for militia papers before selling.

kobra ,

I don’t think that’s actually what we would want. Militias at this point would just be indoctrination machines.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Militia didn't mean the same thing back then. It meant "any able bodied adult to be called up at a moments notice."

There's also a (not surprisingly) racist background to the 2nd as well:

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

"It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And ... James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. ... The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings."

nickwitha_k ,

Context also matters. The authors also thought that a standing army was part of the park to tyranny, opting for a militia system in place of it. The purpose of the Second Amendment, by its own words, is to ensure that nothing could legally stand in the way of regular and irregular militia being able to protect the fledgling nation.

As it stands now, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that's sole purpose for existing is no longer applicable. It needs to be re-evaluated and amended to fit the needs of a nation that has both a standing army and a problem with civilians shooting each other (police are civilians too).

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

The trick with amending it is the process is such a high bar, it can't be done given current political divisions.

290 Congressmen, 67 Senators, and 38 states all have to agree to the new terms to make it happen.

The last time we saw that kind of unity in the House was the 311 votes to bounce George Santos. LOL!

FilterItOut ,

I wish beyond wishing that O'rourke would have just shut the fuck up and deferred about coming after people's guns in Texas. I really wonder if he could've squeaked a victory and Texas would be quite different today. Guns are a losing issue. Even more so than abortion or 'the gays!', guns bring single-issue voters out from everywhere.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Yup. The good news is that it looks like this year will be the best chance in a long time to ditch Ted Cruz.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/senate/2024/texas/

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Lever-Action FTW! ;)

intensely_human ,

Guess I’ll have to go chain-fed

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

This still allows bolt action for hunting, revolvers and shotguns for defense. That should be plenty. If you're spraying a dozen+ rounds in your own home for defense you're more of a danger than an intruder at that point.

Democrats last year passed and Polis signed into law four less-expansive gun control bills. Those included raising the age for buying any gun from 18 to 21; establishing a three-day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun; strengthening the state’s red flag law; and rolling back some legal protections for the firearms industry, exposing it to lawsuits from the victims of gun violence.

Common-sense gun regulation.

Republicans decried the legislation as an onerous encroachment on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. They argued that mental illness and people who do not value life — not guns — are the issues that should be addressed. People with ill intent can use other weapons, such as knives, to harm others, they argued.

Lol. And yet healthcare is something Republicans fight against constantly. And "people who do not value life" is great from the forced-birth and no social safety nets crowd.

Democrats responded that semiautomatic weapons can cause much more damage in a short period of time.

Exactly. If you're incredibly viscous and lucky you can get a lot of people, but rarely double digits with a hand-held blade. With a semi-automatic rifle you can get dozens with someone untrained. And we've seen it happen. Multiple times.

Pistcow ,

And that's why I appendix carry a S&W 500. One shot, anywhere in meat, is a show stopper.

ZoopZeZoop ,

For those wondering, the second sentence, while unnecessarily explicit, is accurate. This gun is a revolver and would not be impacted by this law.

Blackbeard Mod ,
@Blackbeard@lemmy.world avatar

This still allows bolt action for hunting, revolvers and shotguns for defense. That should be plenty. If you’re spraying a dozen+ rounds in your own home for defense you’re more of a danger than an intruder at that point.

I mean, it allows this kind of semi-automatic shotgun, but not this kind of semi-automatic shotgun. Those firearms are functionally indistinguishable, but somehow that little grip thing makes one more deadly than the other. As a lefty hunter and outdoorsman, this kind of bill is absolutely ridiculous security theater that doesn't meaningfully change the risk and/or damage from mass shootings but makes other people feel better, somehow.

WraithGear ,
@WraithGear@lemmy.world avatar

I would argue that hunting, defense, and sport are not reasons we have the right to bear arms. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

Its to overthrow a tyrannical government.

It's actually to have well-armed militias at the state level. Individuals, unorganized will have no chance to overthrow any government. Hence the militia part.

WraithGear ,
@WraithGear@lemmy.world avatar

The problem with that is that’s putting a lot of faith in the state both not being just a tool of the tyrannical government, or the state not being tyrannical themselves, which is why i support a more granular right to bear arms. But you are right that was the plain intention for the second amendment.

brygphilomena ,

Not really what this post is about, but can we get rid of the "common sense gun laws" mantra already? It's implying that anyone who disagrees with it, for ANY reason, doesn't have common sense. It's not good for having a meaningful discussion on how we can work together to deal with this problem.

Personally, I don't think guns are the underlying issue here. While I am not against regulation, I think plenty of events show that without firearms tragedies will still occur. So it would only be a small part of preventing these sort of events.

Gun culture is a major issue, even beyond the guns themselves. "Come and take em" and "fuck around and find out" are symptoms of a mentality that guns are a solution to solving problems that's on par with discussion, leaving, or de-escalating. When ultimately, guns are the final answer that should only be used when all other options have been exhausted.

Socioeconomic pressures and inequality issues need to be addressed to deal with most gun crimes, since mass shootings are the minority cases in which gun deaths occur. Yes, when they happen they are atrocious and make headlines and everyone hears and talks about it, but when people are dieing literally every day from guns we can't only focus on the events that catch media attention.

Mental health, and by extension, all health needs to be made a priority. Suicides by guns is by and far the most common method.

Media needs to stop stoking fear and divisiveness. We see too often than someone reacts with extreme actions to perceived threats that aren't really there. They've been primed to be afraid ALL THE TIME. So when someone knocks at the wrong door or uses their driveway to turn around they violent "protect" themselves from a threat that never existed.

Stop the worshipping of property. It is NEVER worth the taking of life to protect property. This goes back to gun culture where people believe that using a gun to protect their own shit is somehow a valid solution. This also extends to the police. Fuck them for violently protecting property over people.

Fix the police problem. At the very least, teach them fucking patience. At every point they try to end a non-violent interaction as fast as possible that they are often the ones to escalate to violence. Unless someone's life is directly and immediately threatened, chill the fuck out.

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

Personally, I don’t think guns are the underlying issue here. While I am not against regulation, I think plenty of events show that without firearms tragedies will still occur

Yes but it's literally the magnitude of it, which I covered.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Supreme Court shoots it down in 3-2-1...

The Heller ruling in 2008 already decided this.

Washington D.C. had effectively banned pistols, the court ruled then:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."

So, no, you can't ban an entire class of weapon.

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

So, no, you can’t ban an entire class of weapon.

You absolutely can. Full-auto weapons are banned for general purchase in pretty much every state. Things like explosive-based guns are also banned. Flame-throwers, etc.

Heller is a clear violation of state's rights to pass more-restrictive laws than the federal level. We've had tons of gun laws that restrict purchases and types of firearms for decades anyways on the state and local level.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

General purchase, yes, but you can still buy one if you fill out the appropriate ATF paperwork and pay the HUGE transfer fees.

https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/

"To legally own a machine gun, you first have to apply for approval from the federal government. After purchasing the gun, you must fill out an ATF Form 4 application and wait for approval before taking possession of the firearm. The FBI conducts a thorough background check using fingerprints and a photograph required with your application, which could take 9 to 12 months to process. The gun will need to stay in possession of the previous owner until the process is complete.

In addition, you will need to pay a $200 “NFA tax stamp” for each weapon transaction. If approved, you will receive your paperwork in the mail, including a permit with the listed lawful possessor of the firearm. Only then can you take the machine gun home and possess it legally."

This Colorado ruling doesn't allow for that.

capem ,

To be fair, even if it did, I could still see it being unconstitutional to the supreme court.

We don't want to admit it, but we kind of weasled our way to ban automatic weapons which is why there is only a "practical" ban instead of an absolute one.

i.e. You can legally own full-auto weapons if you spend the money to do so.

I think it would be very interesting if some right-wingers tried to do something like this but frame it as though you can "only buy handguns/semiautomatics made before a certain date, gotta pay all these fees, etc."

That could force the supreme court to look at whether the original "ban" on automatics is actually constitutional.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Oh, yeah, and with THIS court? That is absolutely a road Democrats should not even CONSIDER wanting to go down.

The ban was enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Can you imagine if they just tossed that out?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

So, no, you can’t ban an entire class of weapon.

I don't know about that. In general, rocket-propelled weapons and land mines are not legal for ownership. You even need special dispensation to own a fully automatic machine gun.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Those are explosives, completely different deal from firearms. Supreme court ruled on that too, Caetano, 2016:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/

“The Second Amendment covers all weapons that may be defined as 'bearable arms,' even if they did not exist when the Bill of Rights was drafted and are not commonly used in warfare."

Caetano is really my favorite of these rulings because it started out having nothing to do with guns.

Woman, scared of her ex, bought a stun gun for protection. Massachusetts arrested her, stated "stun guns didn't exist back then, no 2nd Amendment right to a stun gun."

Court "um, actually'd" them pretty hard.

So, you can't ban a class of gun (Heller, 2008) and you can't ban a bearable arm just because it didn't exist 200 years ago (Caetano, 2016.)

And the court has only gotten MORE conservative since then, not less. :( This new ban is going to go nowhere fast, shame Colorado taxpayers are going to have to pay for a losing case.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You said 'weapons,' not 'guns.' If you meant guns, that would be a different issue. However, even there, fully-automatic machine guns are not generally available with a simple background check like other guns. You have to apply for a federal license to get them. So they are treated quite differently.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

No, but as noted above, there IS a path to legal machine gun ownership, it's just slightly more involved and expensive.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I would personally argue that expanding that to other guns would be a huge step up from what we have now. It might even prevent some mass shootings.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

It could, but as with the machine gun ban, it needs to be done at a Federal level.

Ultragigagigantic ,
@Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world avatar

So restricted to the wealthy?

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Pretty much, it's a tax on the poors. They'll have to be satisfied with bump stocks and hellfire triggers.

astraeus ,
@astraeus@programming.dev avatar

Thank you for at least bringing the realistic approach to this conversation. It is by no means ideal, and sets us back from actually making streets safer. Anyone can purchase just about anything weapon-related in a country where political chaos and cultural divisions are a dime a dozen is really a cocktail for disaster. Of course people are going to lean on the argument that if the bad guys have the weapons than good guys shouldn’t be banned from having their own, because the number of untraceable weapons is already past critical mass.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

State by state gun laws are SUPER weird too. As an Oregonian, I can own multiple weapons that are illegal in California. You can get in trouble just by crossing the border.

For example, this little guy (Bond Arms Ranger II) is legal in Oregon, illegal in California:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/87fcacf8-e16b-4fb0-937e-3ba9d64e5e6e.png

You might ask "What's the big deal? It's a pistol, not a rifle, it only holds 2 shots, it's a breech loader, so not even semi-automatic... what's the problem?"

Problem is that it's a smooth bore .45 that can also fire .410 shotgun shells. California classifies it as a short barrelled shotgun.

dogslayeggs ,

I've never fired one of those, but it sounds like the kick on it would be crazy. Very small weapon with very large ammo just seems like a recipe for wild kickback. I could be wrong, though. Maybe the grip design helps?

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Grip and the weight. It's 1.5 pounds.

EldritchFeminity ,

Do stun guns use an explosive propellant? I never thought of it before, but it would make sense that they do. I only ask because I know that weapons that don't aren't classified as guns.

Stuff like coil guns, rail guns, and compressed air rifles aren't controlled by gun laws and are unaffected by bans like this because they're not "firearms." For example, some states have a ban on putting a silencer on a gun, but nothing about owning a silencer. So it's perfectly legal to put one on a compressed air rifle, and with how quiet they are, that makes them whisper quiet. Plus, 80% lowers aren't considered guns either, so unless this law specifically calls them out, it's still legal for anybody to go online and have one shipped right to their door. You usually don't even need an F-ID card for that. Hell, even gunpowder doesn't require a license below a certain amount.

Laws like this are, at best, a post hoc solution to a national and cultural problem, and more often than not just security theater.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines