U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 10, 2025 02:45 PM UTC
10 Comments
As KUNC’s Lucas Brady Woods
I guess you must have failed your physics class then.
Contrary to what is stated here, it does ban almost everything semi-automatic that accepts a detachable magazine, sans the .22lr caliber. The bill states recoil operated are exempt, but by definition recoil is based in Newton’s 3rd law on the conservation of momentum. Which states that the force required to accelerate something will evoke an equal but opposite reaction force, which means the *gases* and bullet expelled from the barrel is what causes recoil and cycling of the bolt. This is the way every modern semi-automatic firearm works. Recoil is just the effect of this opposite reaction force.
Guess you haven’t read the bill either.
Section 2, d, II, D “A SINGLE OR DOUBLE
ACTION SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN THAT USES RECOIL TO CYCLE THE ACTION OF THE
HANDGUN;”
contradicts
Section 2, c, V “A BLOWBACK- OPERATED SYSTEM THAT
DIRECTLY UTILIZES THE EXPANDING GASSES OF THE IGNITED PROPELLANT POWDER
ACTING ON THE CARTRIDGE CASE TO DRIVE THE BREECHBLOCK OR BREECH BOLT
REARWARD”
Recoil does not cycle the action, the expanding gases do, recoil is a result of the expanding gases
This article clearly states: “The language of Senate Bill 3 is very clear that recoil-operated handguns are not affected by the bill’s restrictions”
Wanna try that again and finish your thought? Or is that too taxing?
The grey thing underneath looks like a progress bar, and if so the thought (or copy-n-paste or chatbot statement) is about 10% complete.
To say that this wouldn't ban almost every semiautomatic, and that it wouldn't matter if it closed almost "every gun shop in the state," andthen you imply that its the shop owners own fault because ar-15s are bad. I can see just by the tone of your article in intself how you feel about gun rights and the second amendment even though you tried your hardest to appear neutraln this article, for propaganda purposes…. But I can hear you say"well, why are they carrying so many of those (evil)guns of that type (ar-15) anyway…". They carry those guns because that's what sells, is wanted, and that's their right as consumers and as Americans. This law will not do one thing to stop violence, nor will it prevent people from owning whatever weapons they want and are willing to jump through the hoops of already in place laws and regulations to aquire. People will just go to a state that does sell them. They cannot prove any firearms would be pre ban or post ban because they would have to have an electric database or "registry" of gun owners and guns, and that is not currently allowed by law to create or maintain by any government agency. Registration leads to disarmament and tyranny is the end point every time… Besides, guns save lives every day. Don't you care about all the people who are kept safe and out of danger every day by exercising the right to keep and bear arms. And most people choose "(assault") weapons that are semiautomatic because they're actually easier to operate, and safer in many cases because of the detachable magazine feature infact. Tom Sullivan is a fanatic. Like a religious fanatic at this point. And that religion is guncontrol and disarmament at any cost. Be it with one bill disguised and lied about to the public, or a death from 1000 cuts until there's no more rights and no more civilian gun ownership. But that will never be possible. There's more guns than people in this country. Get real!
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 258:
“On the other hand it is clear that Congress cannot by authorization or ratification give the
slightest effect to a state law or constitution which is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 256:
“The general rule is that a unconstitutional statute, whether Federal or State, though having the
form and name of law as in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since
unconstitutionality dates from the enactment and not merrily from the date of the decision so braining it.
An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it never had been passed. Such a
statute lives a question that is purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not ever been enacted.
No repeal of an enactment is necessary, since an unconstitutional law is void. The general principles
follows that it imposes no duty, converse no rights, creates no office, bestows no power of authority on
anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A contract which rests on a
unconstitutional statute creates no obligation to be impaired by subsequent legislation. No one is bound
to obey an unconstitutional law. No courts are bound to enforce it. Persons convicted and fined under a
statute subsequently held unconstitutional may recover the fines paid. A void act cannot be legally
inconsistent with a valid one and an unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede an existing valid
law. Indeed, in so far as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded
thereby. Since an unconstitutional statute cannot repeal, or in anyway effect an existing one, if a
repealing statute is unconstitutional, the statute which it attempts to repeal, remains in full force and effect
and where a statute in which it attempts to repeal remains in full force and effect and where a clause
repealing a prior law is inserted in the act, which act is unconstitutional and void, the provision of the
repeal of the prior law will usually fall with it and will not be permitted to operate as repealing such prior
law. The general principle stated above applied to the constitution as well as the laws of the several
states insofar as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.”
16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 155:
“Since the constitution is intendant for the observance of the judiciary as well as other
departments of government and the judges are sworn to support its provisions, the courts are not at
liberty to overlook or disregard its commands or counteract evasions thereof, it is their duty in authorized
proceedings to give full effect to the existing constitution and to obey all constitutional provisions
irrespective of their opinion as to the wisdom or the desirability of such provisions and irrespective of the
consequences, thus it is said that the courts should be in our alert to enforce the provisions of the United States Constitution and guard against their infringement by legislative fiat or otherwise in accordance with
these basic principles, the rule is fixed that the duty in the proper case to declare a law unconstitutional
cannot be declined and must be performed in accordance with the delivered judgment of the tribunal
before which the validity of the enactment it is directly drawn into question. If the Constitution prescribes
one rule and the statute the another in a different rule, it is the duty of the courts to declare that the
Constitution and not the statute governs in cases before them for judgment.
Id feel a whole lot happier if you would leave your guns outside city limits.
Citing AmJur is the mark of an amateur “lawyer.” Not a single citation to a Supreme Court decision. A prolix spewing of crap copied from a hack legal source is no rational argument. You want to know the state of Second Amendment jurisprudence–the actual law of the land–you need to read and understand Supreme Court cases, beginning with DC v. Heller and continuing through to the Court’s most-recent decision, Rahimi, which upheld a challenge to restricting firearms possession for a person under a restraining order. Save the cut-and-paste bullshit from some other forum.
Why is it that gunheads get so worked up about( supposed violations to) the second amendment to the Constitution, while ignoring (or tacitly accepting all of the present President's blatant unconstitutional actions? ) Will they be content with the establishment of concentration camps for immigrants, journalists, and dissidents, if only they can guard them with their precious AR-15s?
When they lose their Medicaid, or their grandparents lose their Medicare, in order to fund Mr. Musk's tax cuts, will they accept that as a necessary sacrifice to "freedom"?
I'm afraid that we all know the answer to these questions.
Because they are insecure, angry cowards
lol
The chatbots are out in force! Leastwise, I HOPE they're chatbots. If they're actual people, they are too fuck-all stupid to live outside an institution.