Thursday, January 11, 2018

Gun Laws - Colorado

The legislature is in session, do you know where your watch and wallet are?

So here we go again with the House (Donk) and Senate (Rep) rolling out this years collection of new rules without which the population of Colorado will doubtless be decimated by something spread by unregulated stuff somehow. S-52 however, proposes to repeal the magazine restriction law the Dems whooped through back in '13 limiting all firearm mags sold after mid '13 to 15 rounds, which happened to be the capacity of the Golden police chief's duty gun. No shit, he had to excuse himself from the hearing room to go count them.

Click here to contact your Senator and Rep on this.

The original bill was widely seen as providing a safer work environment for a variety of miscreants who seemed to have the more powerful lobby in the capitol in spite of SRO opposition.

This year I cynically predict will be no different with the bill passing the Senate, and being referred in the house to the "kill committee" for a quiet disposal. What we found out was that Tom $tyer has enough money to credibly threaten any wavering Donk with a WELL financed primary opponent if they voted the wrong way.

Cali has moved to the next stage, that of confiscation and the operation is currently in court. Here's a bit of an amicus brief filed with the 9th Circus on this one:
The awareness that a defensive shooter is capable of firing enough rounds to defuse the threat affects every party to a potential attack. Reserve capacity is a credible deterrent to criminals--especially for a victim confronted by multiple assailants. For example, the five criminals chased off by the Detroit woman in the example above would have had less reason to fear her if she had only a 5-shot revolver. Additionally, a defensive shooter can confidently act knowing she will not suddenly exhaust her ammunition and become a defenseless victim--like the Texan woman in the example above.

Violent confrontations are inherently unpredictable. As [Florida State U. criminology professor Gary] Kleck explained, "victims of crimes generally cannot plan for or anticipate crimes to occur at a specific time and place ... Victims who wish to defend themselves with firearms usually have to make do with a single available gun and its ammunition capacity." If a victim sees one assailant, she cannot know if a second assailant may be hiding nearby. If she sees two, there may be three. When a defender has a greater reserve, she will fire more shots at the first attacker knowing that she will have sufficient ammunition to deal with a possible second or third attacker. Obviously, the more shots the defender fires, the greater the possibility that the attacker(s) will be injured and the lesser the chance that the defender will be injured.

Moreover, when a defender has only a limited number of shots, she must make a calculation before each shot to determine whether she can successfully make a threat-ending shot now or whether it is worth the risk to wait a few moments in hopes of a better opportunity. These critical moments the defender spends hesitating and analyzing the situation could be the difference between life and death. By constricting reserve capacity, California's ban increases the risk of injury for victims and reduces it for attackers. That is the opposite of the Second Amendment's intent and purpose.
The logic is there, but the appeal to a legislators, or judges, feelings isn't. If the legislator doesn't feel that he or she is about to lose his or her job, then other arguments are wasted.

No comments: