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.
This will never get past the Supreme Court because it is blatantly unconstitutional.
Nice job wasting money posturing for your base, colorado democrats.
You’re just like the grifters in florida.
Fun question: should I be able to get a full-auto Uzi from a vending machine?
No, seriously. Tiny submachineguns at 7-11. Yes or no?
We currently restrict the hell out of fully automatic weapons. None y’all ever say out loud whether that’s a major blow to your argument or something you want to change. It has to be one or the other. Either we can, in fact, have laws about guns, like any civilized country - or not.
https://lemmy.world/comment/9408257
For anyone more honest, stumbling across this thread:
We do restrict who owns which guns. Some entire classes of firearm are damn near banned.
If that’s fine - then it can be applied to other guns. Like this law.
If that’s not fine - the immediate implication is a free-for-all. Any gun, to anybody, anywhere. Like an Uzi in a gas station vending machine. Whether you want that scenario to be legal should not be a difficult soul-searching question. If you don’t even want to deal with that possibility, in an online discussion, then don’t propose changes that lead to dealing with it in real life.
So if you had to jump through your ass like that for any gun, it’d be fine.
Right?
So long as it’s a well-technically-but-good-luck “ban” instead of an actual outright ban, you’d have no objections.
No…
Why don’t you ask me straightforward questions instead of playing leapfrog with yourself and assuming what I’m going to say?
These ARE straightforward questions. It’s a direct hypothetical about unavoidable results of what you’re saying.
You don’t want this gun law, on the basis that any gun law is bad.
Does that imply the anonymous sale of full-auto guns at corner stores? The word you are looking for is either Yes or No. There is third option. Either we can have laws against that… or we can’t.
You’re doing it again.
Sorry, if you can’t converse like a normal human being then I can’t interact with you.
“These are the obvious implications of the words you keep saying.”
“Well stop doing that!”
I don’t think you know what conversation looks like.
You are discussing laws about guns. Your stated position seems to be, we shouldn’t have any. What the fuck is anyone supposed to say, in a conversation about that, besides addressing it directly?
Ok, goodbye.
Gonna block you now. You need to calm down.
People would still have access to the OG weapons that the Constitution was talking about?
Cool I can have a 12 pound cannon and grape shot then?
Actually yes. I used to have one. Restored it for civil war reenactments. We would shoot pumpkins with it.
As long as it’s not concealed on your person.
Yeah I definitely remember the words “smoothbore musket” in the 2A. People thinking this law is a good idea have huge “but I love my local PD, they’re so helpful and I never get so much as a ticket, just flirt a little” energy.
I’ll take that deal if we can replace cops with militias too.