Worst Possible Mag Limit Repeal Sponsor Strikes Again

Legislation filed for debate in the 2019 session of the Colorado General Assembly is starting to appear on the legislature’s website, and here’s one every Colorado voter should be aware of, regardless of how you feel about the hot-button underlying issue:

Rep. Lori Saine (R), in custody after being caught with a loaded gun at DIA.

House Bill 19-1021 is a bill to repeal Colorado’s 15-round limit on gun magazine capacity. This bill is scheduled for certain death in the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee at an unspecified time in the next few weeks.

But the point is not really the bill, which Republicans in the Colorado legislature have introduced every year since the magazine limit became law. It is worth noting that the 15-round mag limit in particular outraged the gun lobby nationwide and helped drive the 2013 recall elections which ousted two Democratic Senators and promoted the resignation of a third. In 2014, gun-rights groups managed a reasonable crowd to testify in hearings on repeal bills, but since then turnout has steadily dwindled.

The real problem here is the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Lori Saine. In December of 2017, Rep. Saine was boarding a flight at Denver International Airport to receive an award from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) at that organization’s annual conference. A search of her purse at the airport revealed a loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun that Saine had “forgotten” and brought with her. Saine was arrested when she stopped cooperating with security officers, but avoided charges by profusely claiming ignorance of the loaded gun in her purse.

Because this incident did not result in a criminal conviction, Rep. Saine’s right to possess guns–and presumably the concealed carry permit that allowed her to carry one in her purse–was not affected. But in every political sense, the event renders Saine the worst possible legislator of any serving in the Colorado General Assembly to carry a bill to weaken Colorado’s gun laws. We legitimately do not understand why Republicans would allow Saine to so perfectly undermine legislation we assume they would actually like to pass.

If anyone has an explanation that doesn’t boil down to some kind of bad joke, we’d like to hear it.

43 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Voyageur says:

    The answer to your rhetorical question is that your premise is flawed.  Republicans don't want this bill to pass.  The want the bible hating, mofo screaming, vegan eating commie liberal democrats to kill it.  That way, gun nuts will keep on giving votes and money to god fearing, bible thumping, bambi hunting, pussy grabbing Republicans.

    All about optics it is, Yoda says.  And they're coming to take your guns away!

  2. Genghis says:

    We legitimately do not understand why Republicans would allow Saine to so perfectly undermine legislation we assume they would actually like to pass.

    I agree with Voyageur here. The GOP doesn't want the legislation (and certainly doesn't expect to get it); they want the issue. When the freedom-hating Dems kill this POS, it'll energize the stump-jumping morons and keep them donating grossly unreasonable percentages of their minimum-wage incomes and/or government assistance to the advancement of wingnut causes.

    As for choice of sponsor, I'm guessing that many a stump-jumping moron considers Saine, who's dumb as dog shit and crazy as the day is long, some sort of Second Amendment hero. The batshit insane Vicki Marble is term-limited come 2020, so the GOP may be looking to have Saine take over the SD-23 seat.

  3. Negev says:

    Wanna hear the joke? The sponsor of the original mag ban Dianna DeGette, did not know what a magazine was when she banned them. 

    • Voyageur says:

      What, she never read Playboy?  Or when it comes to magazines, she's just  a New Yorker kind of girl?

    • Curmudgeon says:

      Is this the "They don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip! Haw! Haw!" argument?    

      • Negev says:

        Nope. DeGette was under the impression once you shot the ammo out of a magazine it was no longer usable, so banning them was just common sense:

         Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

        “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”


        • bullshit! says:

          What does this have to do with Lori Saine?

          • Curmudgeon says:

            Maybe he was drawing a parallel between DeGette's ignorance of weapons, and Saine's ignorance that she had a goddamned loaded pistol in her purse.

            • Negev says:

              Indeed I was Curmy. Both appear to be the "worst possible legislators" for this particular issue. 

              • Curmudgeon says:

                One was more effective than the other, though. 

                • Negev says:

                  True that. I would however question the efficacy of successfully passing a law intended to reduce gun deaths only to find gun deaths nearly double.  Effectively passing an ineffective law is a narrow victory among these two.  

                  Still, slightly more effective than trying to get a gun past airport security.

                  Wonder why that kind of security is not on the table at schools?

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Because people getting an education don’t want to be xrayed, patted down, and treated like terrorists?

                    Just a wild guess.

                    • Negev says:

                      I'm gonna go with a wild guess that the people in airports don't want to be treated like terrorists either. 

                      Airports have security and don't have mass shootings.

                      Schools have mass shootings and don't have security.  

                      Now put your education to use and conceive a logical solution. If your solution is to limit the number of bullets a terrorist has before they have to reload, so you can run away or overpower them, I will suggest you return to the education system you attended and request a refund. 

                  • Curmudgeon says:

                    Because people who aren't blinded by their love of guns can see that other countries don't have hardened school security, or mass school shootings, and understand there's an easier and better way to prevent them?

                    • Negev says:

                      Which country suggests that giving you time to run or overpower a shooter while they reload is an easier and better way to prevent school shootings than school security?

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      You keep avoiding the actual facts, so you don't have to face the terror of actually having to aim, I suppose.

                      Other countries don't have mass school shootings to the obscene extent we do.  They also don't have hardened schools, with "moar gunz" like you salivate after.  

                      They've apparently figured out a solution you're afraid of.  That's understandable.  Aiming is hard work. 

                    • Negev says:

                      Curmie if you really believe that schools are better off allowing a shooter to send fewer rounds into children hoping they have bad aim, rather than denying the shooter access to the children we really don't need to go further. How has that been working out for ya?

                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      You keep using that Dr. Phil B.S., without addressing the actual cause of the problem.

                      It's your and your ilk's goddamned gun fetishes that's killing schoolchildren.  Not the lack of a hardened facility.   

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Replying to your snarky comment below, since you're out of reply boxes:

                    You wrote: Airports have security, and don't have mass shootings.

                    Really? Your trusted news source, Fox, differs:

                    TIMELINE: The worst airport shootings in the last 15 years

                    I count 12 – and those are just "the worst" mass shootings in airports. This doesn't count the numerous instances of domestic violence, kidnapping, political assassination, simple assault, etc. Contrary to what the White House is saying, most known or suspected terrorists are also caught at airports.

                    We haven't had any more airplanes hijacked, I'll grant you. Probably arming the pilots and generally tightening up boarding and screening procedures has worked. But nothing is ever 100% guaranteed.

                    That is not a reason to give up and let everyone carry concealed in airports, however, lucrative as that might be for your line of work.


                    • Negev says:

                      Did you actually read your link?  The "worst" mass shootings in America in the past 15 years totals innocent people, outside the secure zone.  

                      Again, if you feel that being given a 1.5 second opportunity to run or overpower an armed killer is sound policy, you defy logic. When has a school shooter ever not had time to reload? 



                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      So, if in all your sweaty fantasies, the average school shooter can swap out a mag in 1.5 seconds…why do you even need a Hi-Cap mag to defend Liberty? 

                      If a garden-variety psycho has such skills, surely a highly trained member of the Militia can do as well, right? 

                    • Negev says:

                      Very true, nobody appears to need more time to reload. It does not seem to play even a minuscule role in mass shootings. Why do you contend that it is an effective measure to prevent them? How do you consider allowing a shooter 15 shots before reloading a reasonable restriction? Wouldn't 10, 5, or 1 shot be more reasonable? 

                      How bout 0? Why in gods name wouldn't you rather a shooter not get any shots off before stopping them? How do you do that? Pro-tip: not the way you are doing it now. 


                    • Curmudgeon says:

                      Seems to me you're ignoring the easiest and most effective solution, practiced by all those other countries that don't have school shootings. 

                      Make people more responsible for the guns they want to carry, and make it harder for the crazies to possess them.

    • bullshit! says:

      How exactly does that get Lori Saine off the hook?

      • mamajama55 says:

        It doesn’t. This is classic Negev. 

        A. Gun nut does something stupid and/or dangerous, obviously pandering to the firearms industry.

        b. Negev brings up something dumb a Democrat did or said, thereby hijacking the thread away from the industry pandering.

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          I dunno’, Negev’s well-crafted DeGette argument may have just convinced me that Lori Saine is a damn genius, . . . 

          . . . and that we should mandate issuance of fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines to every U.S. citizen at the moment of birth??!!

          ”Congratulations Mr. and Mrs. Smith, it’s an M4!”

  4. ElliotFladen says:

    This is a cheap shot at Lori and makes you look petty

  5. notaskinnycook says:

    The part of the story about Lori-isn't-Saine and the airport that I always thought was absurd is that guns are heavy. What does she haul around in her bag that she wouldn't notice the weight of a handgun in it?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.