Unfair Advantage: Magpul PMAGs Used At Newtown

UPDATE: Credit where due: we'd like to acknowledge that our friend, media critic Jason Salzman, was asking prescient questions about the origin of the magazines used at Newtown as far back as last March.


Magpul PMAG high capacity magazines.

A long-speculated and significant detail from the Newtown, Connecticut school shootings last December emerges today–and as reported by FOX 31's Eli Stokols, there's an important Colorado connection:

Adam Lanza, who went on a shooting rampage last December at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Conn., carried out the killings using 30-round magazines made by Colorado’s Magpul Industries, according to a 48-page report released Monday.

Lanza used the company’s best-known “PMAG” (polymer magazine), a 30-round cartridge, to kill 26 people, including 20 first graders, the report said.

Colorado lawmakers this year passed five bills aimed at strengthening the state’s gun laws, including a measure that bans the PMAG and any magazine of 15 rounds or more.  Lawmakers cited the Sandy Hook shooting as a partial motivation for the laws.

Magpul, which is based in Erie, fought hard to stop the proposal, even threatening to leave the state should it pass (the measure became law in May and, as of November, Magpul has not yet moved although the company said it’s still planning it).

Here's the report in question from the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice. Search the document for the word "PMAG" to read about the high capacity magazines found in the possession of the Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza.

Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle used in Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, with Magpul PMAG magazine.

As one of the more popular brands of high capacity AR-15-type magazines available, it has long been a suspicion that the magazines used at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut last December were made in Colorado by Magpul Industries, Inc. As Stokols reports, Magpul led the fight to stop the passage of House Bill 1224, legislation limiting the capacity of magazines sold in Colorado to a maximum of fifteen rounds. Magpul had threatened to leave the state if HB-1224 passed, but as of this month has controversially failed to do so. It's worth noting that HB-1224 wouldn't have prevented Magpul from manufacturing its high capacity PMAGs in Colorado–just their retail sale here. In Connecticut after the Newtown shooting, legislation passed this year limited magazine capacity to ten rounds.

We'll put the question to our readers: will confirmation that the high capacity magazines used to gun down over two dozen people, mostly little kids, at Sandy Hook Elementary last year were made in Colorado by Magpul, alter the debate over gun safety legislation in Colorado? Do you think it should? Whichever side you come down on the issue, this is a development that requires a rational answer one way or the other.

And maybe before that, some soul searching.

64 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. n3b says:

    So freaking what, Pols? First of all, they're not "high capacity" magazines, they're STANDARD CAPACITY. AR-15 weapons come standard was a 30 round magazine. Second, it wouldn't have made a difference if the shoot had smaller mags, he would have just reloaded. There was no one with a gun to stop him.

    It disgusts me that you are using this tragedy to score political points and attack a Colorado based company. Haven't the recalls taught you anything? The public is not with Democrats on gun control. Magpul is not the villain, Democrats are.

    Desperate attacks from an anonymous partisan blog with no scruples.

    • Davie says:

      Hey Magpul needs a new PR campaign!  How about: 

      When you just have to commit mass murder, look no further than MAGPUL for all your needs!

    • PERA hopeful says:

      This report says 9 kids escaped from one of the classrooms (the one where Lanza killed himself).  Other reports have said that those kids escaped when Lanza was reloading or his gun jammed.  If it is true that reloading allowed 9 little bitty kids to escape, then maybe 9 more would have escaped if smaller magazines would have caused him to reload more frequently.

    • Not Dame Edna says:

      I am disgusted that someone is making money off of shooting little kids. I am disgusted by the gun nuts claiming that trying to have reasonable rules regarding access to guns (criminals and mentally ill) is "using" a tragedy for benefit of restricting 2nd amendment rights. And I am disgusted by you and your stupid avatar.

    • MichaelBowman says:

      Says the little prick that has a gun pointed at my head.  We're not all anonymous on this site.  Call me.  I'm easy to find.

    • nota33 says:

      Magpul has blood on their hands. I am glad this worthless POS company is leaving Colorado. Good riddance.


      RIP to all the sandy hook victims


      Magpul doesn't care about gun violence victims. All they care about is making money off of selling guns and ammunition. Glad that POS company magpul is leaving Colorado.

    • nota33 says:

      Yes they are you freak. The public is with us. You right wing gun nuts are the minority. Magpul is not wanted here in CO and I and many others say good riddance to them.

    • nota33 says:

      The public is not with you gun freaks. The public is with the gun violence victims and those people that realize that gun violence is a very serious problem. You, the NRA, and magpul all have blood on your hands and you sick freaks should be ashamed of yourselves.

  2. n3b says:

    Also, "unfair advantage?" More baseless scare tactics?

  3. JeffcoBlue says:

    Magpul can GTFO of my state. I'm tired of genuflecting to merchants of death. Fuck 'em.

  4. gaf says:

    The terrible things that were supposed to happen because of the modest gun laws:

    1. Magpul would leave. (They still haven't gotten the hell out of Colorado.)

    2. Hunters would boycott Colorado. (False. See: http://www.denverpost.com/outdoors/ci_24593944/call-colorado-hunting-boycott-misses-mark)

    Lies and scare tactics that were used to oppose modest improvements in safety of the public.

  5. doremi says:

    Lies and scare tactics are still being used.  Listen to the rhetoric of the recall proponents, and you'll hear a litany of disingenous talk..

  6. Not Dame Edna says:

    Colorado's sad connection to a terrible tragedy. Hate to see business leave the state but I have been waiting for the door to hit their ass on the way out of our beautiful state.


  7. Ralphie says:

    Magpul: when a LIVE first-grader just won't do.

  8. Negev says:

    Until people stop blaming the inanimate object and start looking to the actions of the deranged lunatic as the cause of these types of tragedies, you will forever be replacing the object with another until there are no other objects to blame, and never solve the problem.   

    The last drunk driver I read about in the paper killed a family of 6. I don't recall seeing if it was Budwiser or Coors that got him drunk, but really, not sure if it makes much of a difference…  


    • MichaelBowman says:

      That person was likely driving a car that was taxed and maintained to some state & federal standard.  The driver was required to have a license to operate said vehicle.  He/she would  have an insurance policy – with which some company will pay a settlement for the drivers behavior.  See the difference?

      • Negev says:

        Except that the driver was undocumented, with no insurance, and on his 5th DUI. Clearly he fell through the legal cracks. See the similarities?

        Your last sentence makes me think that you feel as if Magpul was held responsible and payed for the shooters behavior in a settlement that this would somehow make the situation better? Or perhaps if Adam Lanza knew that Magpul would have to pay for his actions that he would reconsider his plan? Perhaps the parents can go buy another kid with the settlement money. Are you a lawyer?

        I have said this before in the past and it bears repeating. Limiting the capabilities of the shooter is too little, too late. There were 100 missed opportunities to prevent this tragedy from happening prior to Dec 14th. 


        • ElliotFladen says:

          If you (as a Colorado voter) think high-ammo cap gun control laws are good policy, the fact that Magpul manufactured high-cap magazines in Colorado could be relevant in sort of a NIMBY sense (namely, do it in somebody else's backyard if you are going to do it). 

          Of course, that shows what my two objections are to this:
          1) I don't think that high-cap law is good policy; and 
          2) There are plenty of states that will gladly permit manufacture of the magazine so a NIMBY policy here would just be a dog/pony show.  

        • MichaelBowman says:

          I rarely wade in to this debate.  I grew up in a very rural area, the new epicenter of the 51st state – Yuma County.  I've never owned a gun.  Never felt unsafe.  I'm not anti-hunter. Or guns for the most part  I have a brother who owns enough guns and ammo to anhialte a small city.  A background check is not an assault on anyone's freedoms; imposing reasonable fees related to said checks used for mental health services wouldn't be, either. 

          Your earlier comment that insuated that somehow we should dismiss gun issues because people are still being killed by drunk drivers is preposterous.  When society writ large realized drunk driving was a problem we didn't rush out and make the case the solution was giving people more alcohol.  No laws related to drunk driving bankrupted the alcohol industry.

          I think we can all agree that mental health treatment is a really good place to start.  And that money doesn't fall out of the sky.  The first step is admitting there is a problem.  Congratulations.  You are much more advanced than many in that space.

          • Negev says:

            We can agree on mental health is a good place to start. I would also like to clarify that I did not insinuate we should dismiss gun issues because people are being killed by drunk drivers. My point is we should dismiss Magpul because Coors is not killing people, drunk drivers are.

            • MichaelBowman says:

              Point taken.  Like I said, I rarely wade in to this fray.  Most of my opinions are rooted in a Jesuit mindset that always takes me to the core question: what is the root of the problem?  The same folks [guns] that say a law limiting magazine capacity are the same folks that want us to believe that if we have a personhood amendment that somehow abortions will magically disappear. 

              A single law limiting capacity won't end the mass murders anymore than a single law regading womens reproductive rights will end abortions.

              Adam Lanza is just a microcosm of society's challenges.  I'd like to say he is the lucky one because of his parents affluence – but that distinction didn't separate him from the poorest of children in our society.  He was unattended-to by his parents.  In his case, he had a father and mother who paid little attention to him but a lot of attention to their careers.  On the flip side of the coin, poor children are often left alone as their parent[s] are working three, minimum-wage jobs to keep the lights on. 

              Until we start addressing the root, nothing is going to change.

              Here's one of my favorite quotes…

              • Negev says:

                My hope is more people would see your logic. And mine. I don't think they are that far apart. 

                • BlueCat says:

                  Until people stop blaming the inanimate object and start looking to the actions of the deranged lunatic…

                  In Lanza's case it's true that background checks wouldn't have helped because of his mother's astoundingly poor judgement in enabling, even encouraging, this obviously deranged young man, known to be obsessed with violence and mass murder, especially involving schools and children, to pursue his obsessions. He had access the type of weapons he used because she did and she could have passed any type of background check. 

                  No legislation  will ever stop all of anything. However someone just like him but without an enabling family member could have been stopped from obtaining that kind of firepower through the right kind of background check regime. These types are not savvy criminals with underworld connections. They obtain guns because it's so easy for them to do so.

                  I question how we can make any progress in addressing mental health issues or domestic abuse issues in connection with gun violence without expanded background check legislation that would make it much more difficult for a Lanza without an incredibly judgement impaired mother to have easy access to weapons.

                  What are your thoughts on background checks to reduce some of that risk?

                  • Negev says:

                    Not sure if that last line was a question to me, but I  see no problem with background checks. I see no problem in paying for them. I just question why, after every mass killer either passed a background check, or bypassed it alltogether, someone would accept this as a preventative measure? And why would a mass shooter, intent on taking as many lives as possible prior to killing themselves, be concered with the legality of their magazine capacity?



                    • BlueCat says:

                      Yep it was a question to you.

                      I would just suggest that perhaps proposed or contemplated background check legislation could work better to make it harder for those with criminal records or mental health issues to obtain guns. There have, up to now, been so many loopholes that it's no wonder the level of checks available haven't proved very effective.

                      I do think we could devise checks that would be more effective.  Of course where mental health issues are concerned that would have to involve legislation that would put those who have been diagnosed and treated for various conditions into a register that would interface with the checking mechanism.

                      I also believe that magazine limits would limit the duration of an event uninterrupted by a chance to escape or intervene. I do think it makes sense to ban certain types of weapons outright. After all, we don't allow people to run around with rocket launchers. But it would have to be defined much more specifically than, say, assault style weapon.

                      I don't see any great harm or constitutional violation involved in giving such policies a try, though the courts would have to settle constitutional issues. Such a trial would prove or disprove efficacy.

              • PERA hopeful says:

                Michael, the report doesn't bear out your assertion that his parents did not attend to him or pay attention to him because they were focused on their careers.  Read pages 29-30 of the report.  His dad saw him regularly until he turned 18, when he quit responding to his dad's efforts to communicate with him.  His mom did not work because of his condition; she stayed home to take care of him.  I don't think he suffered from a lack of parental attention.  He suffered from being batshit crazy and his mom was trying to deal with him by herself rather than getting him hooked up with mental health services.

                All that being said, he should never have been allowed within a country mile of a firearm and his mom made sure he had access to an arsenal.

                • BlueCat says:

                  It sure bears out that his mother was nuts to allow guns and violent video games to be the center of this particular kid's life. I've always wondered if he didn't just want to be inside the game for real, not virtual.

                  • Negev says:

                    BlueCat there is no reply under your reply to me above so I am taking this space to reply to your post. I say many of these things as a bit of an antagonist but let it be known I like the way you think and mean no disrespect. 

                    First, can you elaborate on which background check loophole was exploited, in the Sandy Hook, or any other infamous mass shooting?

                    Next point I cannot agree with you more on – that is if there is no connection between a backround check and a mental health issue, there is really no point. My question is why is this not on the table? Where is the advocate for this issue, and why, in such a large push for legislation to curb gun violence, did the CO legislature not do ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to attach a mental health screening to background checks?

                    In terms of magazine restrictions, how is it that the largest death count in mass shootings (VA Tech, 30) was completed with the smallest capacity magazines (17, 10 round magazines)?

                    While "giving it a try" in terms of banning certain types of weapons, we can look to other countries to see how that works out. I urge you to view this video:


                    Take it for what its worth, but if one can accept Mrs. Hudaks "statistics are not on your side" as as acceptable, it may be useful information. 

                    I feel this is a good conversation and mean in no way to offend, just inquire. 


                    • BlueCat says:

                      I stated that there was no way background checks would have helped in that particular incident and that there is no possible legislation that will completely eliminate such incidents. You have a mother who obviously had no more sense than a piece of toast and who herself could easily pass a background check.  Not much that anyone could have done about that. But I think there are cases where universal, no loop hole background checks could head off other incidents

                      I'll watch that video and get back to you .

                    • BlueCat says:

                      OK I'm back and no worries.  This is a good discussion and I take you at your word that you don't intend offense. Neither do I.

                      I was surprised by this video because I had recently heard some Australian  official saying pretty much the opposite so I looked at fact check and snopes and here are the links to what I found:




                      In any case our legislation concerned background checks and magazine size but did not force anyone to disarm. None of the gun control proposals at the federal level call for disarming ordinary gun owners. We have a  few firearms in our home. We aren't any more defenseless than we were before the Colorado legislation was passed. 


                      I will say that I find all the programs, voluntary here in the US, where people turn in their guns and get something in return pretty useless. I haven't seen any stats connecting those programs with decreased gun violence. We've always had a collection in flux of several guns around the house, some old but not valuable that we've come by when a close relative has died or something like that. We could always bring in one or two we really didn't want. We'd still have the ones we liked. I bet lots of people who bring guns into those exchanges still have guns at home. 


                      All that said, I do think our goal should be a universal background check system that would help us keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and make it harder for people who have lost their right to have fire arms to obtain them so easily and that certain types of weapons and ammo should be banned altogether for civilian use.


                      I just don't see what harm that would do to anyone's ability to defend themselves or their homes. I'm just not reading about incidents in which armies of criminals are attacking innocent people in their homes to the point where we need battlefield level firepower to defend ourselves. I find it hard to understand just what it is that those opposed to any kind of regulation are so worried about.


                      I also recognize that the kind of  mass murders that get so much press are a drop in the bucket compared to the everyday one on one or two gun violence that happens every day.  In places like my native Chicago, the kids who are killing each other are almost exclusively arming themselves with stolen guns that they buy in, shall we say, extra legal transactions anyway. In a country as awash in guns as ours,  that's going to be very tough to address. But you have to start somewhere and I think we should start by finding effective ways to do what we can, where we can.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      I don't know what I'm doing wrong but stuff I do that usually keeps my text uniform just isn't working for me. Once again, sorry about crazy text.

                • MichaelBowman says:

                  There were several media stories about his father's abandonment of he and his mother.  Perhaps they were false – or overblown.  The bigger point is that parental neglect and/or abandonment isn't unique to socioeconomic conditions.  One side generally has one or both parents consumed with six-figure careers, because they don't have enough.  The other side often consumed with making a living with more than one, minimum-wage job, becasue they don't have enough. I concede it's a simplistic argument – each situation is unique.

                  • Negev says:

                    BlueCat again, no reply button under your post. Thank you for the civil discussion. 

                    I again inquire about the background check loophole. Which/what loophole is allowing a killer to thwart the system? I would agree this loophole should be removed. However I cannot identify what this loophole is. 

                    On the next point, I do not wish to suggest that any of the US gun control measures were meant to disarm, nor do I believe that the CO laws are trying to "take away" our guns. What can be taken from this is that a country, who went way, way further in legal terms than any legislation on the table in America – that is, total civillian disarmament – confiscation – is having a difficult time quantifying a decline in gun violence, and from alternate sources may indicate a rise in gun violence. 

                    Domestically we saw little evidence to conclude that magazine capacity in the Clinton ban made any difference whatsoever.

                    Studies by this administration show gun sales up and gun crimes down.

                    So when you say we have to start somewhere and find effective ways to do what we can, where we can – I cannot agree with you more. I think where we differ is that the legislation provided in last session is not effective – as proven, time and time again, on a local, national, and international level. 

                    In relation to Sandy Hook, lets see what failed and pretend we could turn back time. First, background check as stop gap. Failed. Next magazine capacity – a aleged 9 students escaped while a jam or reload – thats good news. But the shooter did not stop because he ran out of targets, or ammo. Nobody tackled him when he reloaded. He had plenty of full magazines and 11 minutes in that building, yet within 60 seconds of armed resistance an impending shootout with police, he took his own life.

                    Now, I grant you the notion that 9 kids survived due to a reload – nobody is certain how that actually panned out, but I am willing to bet thats true. It still left the shooter with hundreds of rounds, and hundreds of targets. But the threat of armed resistance stopped the shooter in his tracks.

                    Now, I am no proponent of arming teachers, or armed guards – we see more shots fired by untrained individuals with guns presumed to protect than mass shooters, but the reality is that this is the most effective and proven method of stopping a shooter. The "gun free zone" is a turkey shoot to these people – this is not my opinion – it is a fact. And against my own personal beliefs, one cannot deny that ol' Wayne Lapierre (I am not a fan of him or the NRA) when he says "the only defense against a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" may, just may, hold some truth. 

                    So you and I agree that effective is the key, and hey, thats a good start. I just have a hard time using the same old rulebook that has been proven ineffective over decades of study as the the guideline for future effectiveness. 

                    • Duke Cox says:


                      Well said. I haven't yet heard a more forthright and well considered presentation of the case against limiting magazine size. You make a reasonable argument for "why not 30 rd. magazines?". Can you make an equally compelling case for "why do we need them"?

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Sorry. I'm referring to the huge hole that allows people in most states to avoid background checks at gun shows and through private sales. I believe I've seen a stat that says that accounts for something like  40% of all sales. Naturally, no background check system can be effective if it's so easy to avoid by those who have the most reason to do so. 

                      And I've already admitted that Sandy Hook isn't a good example of a situation that would have been prevented by background check. As for your other examples specific to that situation, I cede you all of them.  Once again, I've admitted that no regulations will address every incident. Because the escape providing break was due to jamming, not running out of bullets in that case doesn't mean, for instance, that their haven't been or won't be cases in which people have escaped or will escape or in which a shooter has been or will be tackled while the shooter is re-loading. We have documented instances of just that.

                      To be clear, I don't believe any regulations will prevent or even mitigate every Sandy Hook. I do think we can reduce the number of Sandy Hooks and decrease the body count in some of those that we can't prevent. 

                      Naturally we both prefer studies that support our views. Hope you checked out the links I provided. Our positions seem to me to have an element of the old half empty/half full question. You wonder why my side wants to try things that you believe haven't been definitively proved to be efficacious. In fact you believe they have been proved not to be effective. My side doesn't understand the resistance to giving some things, which we don't believe would do anyone any harm, a try. We are skeptical of some of the proof offered by your side, and can find other studies to refute yours. Stats being what they are, we'll have a hard time convincing one another.

                      Finally, though, I honestly don't see why anything in the Colorado legislation should rise to the drastic level of being considered cause to recall a legislator who supported it. I don't see how any of it harms anyone's ability to have firearms and use them for self defense. I don't see how any of it is inconsistent with other restrictions that have been around for ages without being declared unconstitutional in court.  It doesn't ban any additional weapon and it doesn't take away anyone's guns.  

                      What I find most puzzling is a response from the right which strikes me as pretty hysterical considering what's actually in it.  People don't usually go so far as to mount recalls against legislators over legislation they don't think will work very well. They usually just vote for someone else in the next election.

                      It's been very nice to be able to have this discussion instead of just screaming insults at and talking points past each other.

    • MADCO says:

      Sure- to intervene prior to the event, we need …background checks to prevent the unstable (unsuitable) to having the object in the first place.

      We need testing and licensing for the owner/operator to demonstrate competence.

      We also need to recognize that while an object could conceiveably be used as a murder weapon, most are not designed to be such.  those that are so designed are rightfully categorized and regulated differently.

      • Negev says:

        Thank you Duke.  I don't think I have a more compelling case for why we "need" 30 round magazines. I do however believe it's very similar to the reason we "need" abortions. 

        BC the stat you saw that shows 40% was based on the number of vendors at gun shows who do not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL's). I am not sure if you have been to a gun show lately, but those vendors are generally selling elk jerkey, conspiracy theory literature, or survival gear. Not guns. I mean think about it – how can you document the number of unregistered sales of undocumented guns? 

        And in terms of the recall efforts, I urge you put any issue you hold as important and replace it into the gun debate. Put an "R" in place of the "D" and reflect on the method these laws went through. What would you do? This is/was an attack on the fundamental rights that people of the gun perceive as paramount to the U.S. Constitution. I say perceive as whether or not it actually is a constitutional violation or not is left to be seen, but the perception, to them, or us, and me, is that a bunch of yahoo legislators got a pat on the back from Biden and Bloomberg and bid thier will, reguardless of the overwhelming evidence that supports all measures passed are incredibly ineffective and have failed miserably in the areas that they came from.  

        Again, thank you and Duke for a quality discussion. I can enter a million pro gun websites and we all can measure our dicks and bad mouth anti gun folk all day long without an ounce of progress. Its not until you wrangle with opposition that something gets done. So thanks. 


        • Negev says:

          And a Happy Thanksgiving to all! 

          • BlueCat says:

            To you, too.  You are a refreshing addition to this site. I apologize for getting off on the wrong foot with you when you first turned up. I was wrong to lump you in with others who contribute mainly to levels of exasperation, not to anything resembling cogent debate. As noted on the Hudak recall update thread, though, recall is dead as a viable tactic for removing legislators one doesn't agree with between elections so there's one thing we don't have to debate anymore.

            • Negev says:

              Thank you BC, I appreciate your discussion. I would however dissagree that recall is not a viable tactic for removing legislators. I would indeed submit that it is an incredibly effective method of removing legislators. Do not believe for a second that the "gun nuts" thought Hudak would fight the recall. The resignation was eminent. Premature, but eminent. I think a 3rd grader could predict, after 2 failed recalls and the prospect of losing the majority, that the only option was resignation. While I question whether you would consider a gun nut smarter than a 3rd grader, thier handlers are.

              This was a win for the gun nuts. Call it what you want, but the resignation was expected.  This I know. I would also predict a legal battle for a special election. 

              Time will tell.

              • BlueCat says:

                I think you give them too much credit. If they didn't think they'd get to replace Hudak with one of their own, why did they do it? What good does it do them to have Hudak replaced with another Dem pretty much like her on the issues?  As I said, if they thought there were a bunch more they could replace via recall they would have mounted those recalls.  Yes, it's a victory in the sense that they've force out three Dems and gained two seats. But no, they aren't going to be able to replace any more via recall, a much easier route than general election.

                • Negev says:

                  They did it to get rid of her. They did it without the organizations associated with the Morse/Giron recall (BFDF), and in fact were advised NOT to proceed.

                  Morse, Giron, and now Hudak, will go down in history as the legislators that went too far, and the people fought back. Over guns. Now, whether you or I feel that way, or believe whether it is true or not, that is how it will go down. That, politically, is way more valuable that a 1/2 term majority in the senate.

                  I would be very surprised if any further gun legislation is even proposed next session. If so, my guess would be that those voting on these issues will, at the very least, consider the outcome of these recalls when casting thier vote. In fact I would submit that every vote cast from this day forward will reflect on the consequences these recalls have produced.

                  Don't take that as a partisan statement, as the Republicans are in the same boat. The LAST thing they wanted was for these recalls to succeed, and thier hand was forced when adequate signatures were gathered. You can be sure they are next on the chopping block. The trouble is there are few issues that invoke such enthusiasm. And recalls are hard. The Dems will have trouble finding the pool of motivated people that the gun issue can gather – unless we are talking abortion or other "right" of similar  scale. 

                  Hudak pulled the plug too soon. Personally I don't think her recall was necessary, as there was adequate momentum from Morse/Giron. That and 19,000 signatures is an incredible hurdle, and if they did not get them, it was another so called "failed" recall, so why do it? The fact she resigned before the count cost the Dems a potential "win"  when they don't come up with the signatures.

                  So its a win for the gun nuts, reguardless of majority. In fact its 3 out of 4, which ain't bad. 

                  • mamajama55 says:

                    Have to agree and disagree with you, Negev. As I've commented extensively on here, there is a schism within the "gun enthusiast" community. On one side, you have the more business -oriented  NRA,  Basic Freedom and Rights, El Paso Freedom & Rights, Pueblo Freedom and Rights, Laura Carno, and the more establishmentarian arm of the Republican party.  This arm was well funded by Americans for Prosperity-Colorado, and the National Rifle Association, and Carno's "I am Created Equal".  Within that group, there are also divisions, as in Ryan Call & Republican establishment vs. PFR and BFDF.


                    Then you have the group which started the Hudak recall – out of district Republican operatives and failed candidates Mike McAlpine and Tom Bjorklund, with startup funding from Dudley Brown's group, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. I'd put links to all this, but I have to get back to cooking.

                    So while it is true that different organizations were in play, and while the recallhudaktoo will claim that it was totally a "grassroots effort", it was simply different organizations, that played upon the fear and paranoia of gunzos statewide for donations, and some volunteers within the district.

                    I repeat – this was never really about Evie Hudak, and it was never really about guns. This was always about taking over the Senate and being able to further a Republican agenda. That effort has now failed, thanks to Hudak's sacrifice today.

                  • BlueCat says:

                    One thing I always caution people to remember is that none of this is a blip on the screen for most people. We tend to believe everyone pays as much attention to local politics as we do. The truth is the majority barely know who their US Rep is and have no idea who their State Senator or Rep is. I know this from years of canvassing and phone banking at election time in my HD for campaigns from HD level to presidential as well as general GOTV efforts. 

                    Try canvassing sometime. Here in the south burbs where most are reasonably well educated, you know one of the most common questions I was asked when canvassing for Joe Rice, my then HD Rep? Is he running against Coffman? Then I'd have to explain the difference between a CO State Rep and a US House Rep and the difference between the state legislature here in Colorado and the Congress in DC. Pretty depressing. And these were people on my precinct lists listed as those who had voted in the past several elections.  So thisprobably isn't exactly going to be remembered in Alamo-esque terms by the masses for the ages.

                    At present Dems still hold both houses of the state legislature and can prevent that from changing prior to the beginning of the 2015 session by simply refusing to play the recall game and appointing another Dem. Besides, it's only feasible in a limited number of districts in the first place 

                    A majority of the people, according to polls, approve of the measures passed. Not a majority in every district, perhaps, but statewide and in plenty of districts.  

                    I'm pretty sure blowing any chance of taking over the state senate prior to 2015 isn't a complete victory for the, in your own words, gun nuts.  As far as a legal battle for a special election, on what grounds and by what mechanism?  If that's what they're now plotting it's a pipe dream.

                    Of course losing two seats is bad news for Dems. But I think it's premature to project gun nut hegemony crushing everything in its path for very long.  2014 will demonstrate which of us has a better handle on the big picture. In the meantime Happy Thanksgiving.wink

                    • Negev says:

                      I cannot agree with you more on these points BlueCat, none of this is more than a blip on the screen for most people. Most people would have never heard of John Morse or Angela Giron had they not gone throught the recall process, Just as I had never heard of Scott Walker prior to this. 

                      However, it would be reasonable to suggest that these people are not the target audience. It is those like you, me and others who are paying attention that will not easily forget this process. 

                      That being said, politicians are an egotistical bunch, D or R (or any other) and losing thier job in this fashion is a substantial ego blow. They can say they stood up for what they thought was right, or the will of the people, or whatever sound bite makes them feel publicly better, but when the doors are closed, and they are all alone with thier thoughts, they know they were fired. Right or wrong, D or R, by the will of the people or special interests, thats gotta hurt.

                      No legislator wants to be in that position, and no matter who says they work for us, thier political career is paramount. These people will not forget. 


                    • BlueCat says:

                      All true. Just thought I'd check in one more time before the long slog that is Thanksgiving Day.Llots of stuff to do. Have a great one.

        • Duke Cox says:

          I do however believe it's very similar to the reason we "need" abortions.

          Sorry, Negev..I can't go there with you. That equivalency doesn't work for me.

          Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. Just keep the victims of gun violence in your thoughts and prayers. Their families have to search extra hard to find a reason for gratitude and happiness this season.

  9. MADCO says:

    "Colorado connection?"


    That's a ridiculous overstatement, Pols and you know it.

    Magpul commited to leaving Colorado if the background checks and magazine size limitation were pased into law, wich they were.   So, therefore, Magpul has left Colorado and this makes theis revelation a Texas connection.  Seriously, how hard is it to get these things straight?


  10. mamajama55 says:

    I read the final report on the shooting. It was sad and disheartening. It did engender many questions. Was Adam Lanza bullied? No one saw it happen. Was he mentally ill? Yes, but we don't know the diagnosis. Did he lack empathy? Certainly.

    Why did his mother insist on buying and equipping him with guns? Was that the only bond they had or could have?

    To answer Pols question:

    We'll put the question to our readers: will confirmation that the high capacity magazines used to gun down over two dozen people, mostly little kids, at Sandy Hook Elementary last year were made in Colorado by Magpul, alter the debate over gun safety legislation in Colorado? Do you think it should?

    We'll put the question to our readers: will confirmation that the high capacity magazines used to gun down over two dozen people, mostly little kids, at Sandy Hook Elementary last year were made in Colorado by Magpul, alter the debate over gun safety legislation in Colorado? Do you think it should?

    I don't think that outing Magpul as the manufacturer of the magazines used in the Sandy Hook shooting will alter the debate on gun legislation at all. We're all so entrenched in our positions by now, I don't see any movement possible.

    As Pera Hopeful said, at one point the shooter had to reload, and kids escaped. That is the strongest argument for magazine size limits.  That's been the argument in Colorado, and elsewhere – mass murderers are limited in scope by need to reload.  And that is just one of the gun laws that are popular, in isolation, and not as part of a spin that "the librals are out to getcha guns!" So, no change in that debate.

    I'm having trouble visualizing somebody wanting to buy a 30 round magazine because they were used at Sandy Hook, but there may be people twisted enough to do that. Certainly Adam Lanza studied mass murders and shootings in detail, including the weapons and ammo used. There are certainly copycats out there, and Magpul stands ready to supply them. I hope that this revelation causes a big dip in business for Magpul, but I doubt that it will.


  11. nota33 says:

    I have no problems wit Hudak at all, but if the gun nuts get enough signatures, Hudak should step down. This is about the control of the senate. These gun nuts are abusing the recall process and they are taking advantage of low turnout elections.

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.