404
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] astraeus@programming.dev 5 points 8 months ago

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@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago

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:

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@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

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?

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Shotgun shells come in many varieties and loads of poweder, you absolutely can make that a wrist snapper but if you pick the right shells, especially for .410 you won't be too bad. .45 would probably have a lot of muzzle raise but I wouldn't imagine that to kick too forcefully, definitely handle-able but you're probably not ripping fast on target follow up shots with that.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Grip and the weight. It's 1.5 pounds.

[-] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] thejynxed@lemmy.basedcount.com 1 points 8 months ago

You can own both of those things, you just need the explosives permit from the BAFTE, and they are very strict about the permitting and furthermore the storage, etc of those items. If you don't mind the FBI examining your butthole and the buttholes of everyone you know, along with massive fees and regular inspections of the items and their storage facility, then have at it.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
404 points (96.3% liked)

News

23655 readers
3155 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS